Consentual NonConsentuality (Full Version)

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



Message

Real0ne -> Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 3:43:52 AM)


The person consents one time to serve as a "slave" and upon thier consent they become an "owned slave" where all aspects of thier life are no longer consentual but nonconsentual for the duration of the contract or life.

Are there degrees or levels in this.  By the strict definition that many dominants use it would seem possibly not?  Often the words irrevocable are used.

at what point, if any, does a slave have the right of consentuality after enslavement and being "owned"?  



slavejali -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 3:56:47 AM)

Here is my take on it.

We are human beings and as such every minute of every day we are making choices, consciously and unconsciously. Till the day we die, that is the fact.

I know some would not like to think this but in reality, a slave can walk out the door at any time, unless they are being held as an illegal slave in some kinda criminal organsiation.

Peoples thoughts and emotions  and promises can *bind* them to situations and it can appear that they no longer have a choice to leave but thats only an illusion, the reality is, they have two feet and can walk and never look back.

What a slave might agree to is the *terms* to which they will submit. Depending on the Master is how strict and all encompassing those terms may be. The slave could be irrevocably bound to these terms and to this commitment because the alternative is, that if broken, there is no longer a relationship. Thats a kind of irrevocability...but really...even then...the choice is still there and so is consensual.



SirLordTrainer -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 4:39:11 AM)

From My experience and in My opinion the only levels are the ones imposed by the parties involved, but to say that ''all aspects of their life are no longer consentual'' is just unrealistic, not to mention potentially dangerous. Thats why in all power-exchange relationships there must be pre-negotiation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The person consents one time to serve as a "slave" and upon thier consent they become an "owned slave" where all aspects of thier life are no longer consentual but nonconsentual for the duration of the contract or life.

Are there degrees or levels in this.  By the strict definition that many dominants use it would seem possibly not?  Often the words irrevocable are used.

at what point, if any, does a slave have the right of consentuality after enslavement and being "owned"?  



BeeQueen -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 4:55:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

Here is my take on it.

We are human beings and as such every minute of every day we are making choices, consciously and unconsciously. Till the day we die, that is the fact.

I know some would not like to think this but in reality, a slave can walk out the door at any time, unless they are being held as an illegal slave in some kinda criminal organsiation.

Peoples thoughts and emotions  and promises can *bind* them to situations and it can appear that they no longer have a choice to leave but thats only an illusion, the reality is, they have two feet and can walk and never look back.

What a slave might agree to is the *terms* to which they will submit. Depending on the Master is how strict and all encompassing those terms may be. The slave could be irrevocably bound to these terms and to this commitment because the alternative is, that if broken, there is no longer a relationship. Thats a kind of irrevocability...but really...even then...the choice is still there and so is consensual.


couldnt agree more. everyone that tells another human that he looses all rights to make his own desicions is heavy mistaken. a sub slave or whatever u call it, is still a individual. and while u might agree on the fact that the dominant part makes rules, its still up to the submissive (and it doesnt matter if u call it slave or sub) to follow the rules. and if the submissive doesnt agree on the rules, than there is something to talk about.
dont let anyone tell you that u lost all ur rights with a collar/bdsm relation.
Bee



LordKhensu -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 5:29:00 AM)

This is such a smybiotic relationship that one would wonder why a sub/slave would stay if they are not getting what they need deep in the minds and hearts of themselves. What binds two people in any given relationship is trust, commitment and need. If the Dom/Domme is not getting this then many times they will just let the sub go and it is over, period. So why should a sub/slave feel they must stay forever locked in a situation that is not feeding into their mindset.

 I knew a slave who left because her master favored another and refused to put her on the cross and beat her. This was her need and desire and after numerous attempts at communincation with her Owner she left. it doesnt require a collar or a piece of paper to bind one to another. it requires what they feel in their hearts and minds. Capture their mind and the rest will follow!



thetammyjo -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 6:57:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The person consents one time to serve as a "slave" and upon thier consent they become an "owned slave" where all aspects of thier life are no longer consentual but nonconsentual for the duration of the contract or life.

Are there degrees or levels in this. By the strict definition that many dominants use it would seem possibly not? Often the words irrevocable are used.

at what point, if any, does a slave have the right of consentuality after enslavement and being "owned"?


This depends entirely on the terms of ownership or the negotiated contract.

I, for one, have no desire to own someone who could not withdraw their consent to being mine at any moment.

Part of this is my own background and my very big value on mutual ongoing consent.

Part of it is me being realistic. Didn't buy Fox in a Roman market place or inherit him from my father in anti-bellum south. There are no legal means to keep in my culture if he decides to leave and frankly several legal charges I could be brought up on for trying to or forcing him to stay.



RiotGirl -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 9:05:01 AM)

Consentual nonconsentual rocks.  i think everyone should try it.  But i'm talking more for the moment.  As for slaves and such.  Well i can see how that could come into play.  Like me being pierced.  Classic example.  Few other classic examples too.  i had given consent to anything he so desired once upon a time.. and when it came time to being pierced, it was kind of nonconsentual.  Granted it still was consentual as i could of told him to get lost and get the hell out of my place and given him his collar back. 

Though you use big words, i'm not quite sure what you're looking for.  LOL



MasterFireMaam -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/26/2006 9:23:13 AM)

In my world, a slave had a choice everytime they are given an order: to obey or not. Asking question to clarify the order isn't included here...they can ask all the questions they want. A slave can always choose to not obey...but that can mean that it dissolved the relationship (that's point that should be discussed BEFORE the slave is owned so that is made clear). I can think of several instances where it is wise to NOT obey and some of them are disobeying out of love and devotion.

Fire



Real0ne -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/27/2006 3:09:11 PM)

so is this just some kind of dominant fanciful thinking then?  i see it all the time on here and elsewhere.  On the surface it seems plausible at least by definition where as it seems that a slave would be giving consent to a nonconsentual relationship by signing a contract of slavery.



amayos -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/27/2006 4:26:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
so is this just some kind of dominant fanciful thinking then? 


I would say it's more the average sage wisdom of the BDSM community, which for many is indeed spot-on and should be. Such rationale is in no way representative of all relationships or arrangements, however.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
On the surface it seems plausible at least by definition where as it seems that a slave would be giving consent to a nonconsensual relationship by signing a contract of slavery.


Signed M/s contracts have little to no legal significance, but if executed properly may be used to show the willing state of both parties, should the state of affairs and nature of the relationship be questioned.

Some deeply feel that placing limits of consent upon a Master's actions turns his dominance into nothing more than an elaborate masquerade. Some realize more literal forms of slavery as this is where their mind and spirit are drawn. In regards to the type of slave I keep and often speak of, it is a gross oversimplification to suggest it's simply a matter of getting up, walking away and never looking back again. From a technical point of view, this is true about anything in life—but it does not echo so well in all matters of the human soul. Slave, lover, friend or foe, it is unwise to discount or underestimate the reality of devotion in a human being.



Real0ne -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 5:56:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos
Signed M/s contracts have little to no legal significance, but if executed properly may be used to show the willing state of both parties, should the state of affairs and nature of the relationship be questioned.


so then from a legal standpoint in the free world we can say that it is nonexistant.




MadamShy -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 6:13:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

Here is my take on it.

We are human beings and as such every minute of every day we are making choices, consciously and unconsciously. Till the day we die, that is the fact.

I know some would not like to think this but in reality, a slave can walk out the door at any time, unless they are being held as an illegal slave in some kinda criminal organsiation.

Peoples thoughts and emotions  and promises can *bind* them to situations and it can appear that they no longer have a choice to leave but thats only an illusion, the reality is, they have two feet and can walk and never look back.

What a slave might agree to is the *terms* to which they will submit. Depending on the Master is how strict and all encompassing those terms may be. The slave could be irrevocably bound to these terms and to this commitment because the alternative is, that if broken, there is no longer a relationship. Thats a kind of irrevocability...but really...even then...the choice is still there and so is consensual.



Bravo exactly .. people think too much into this non consentual things.. when I say a slave in My service has No limits... no choices .. in reality they always have a choice ,. to walk out that door and never to return. as long as I tell them what they are getting into ,,, and they know what My conditions are no matter how cruel and they agree then its fair game .... after all I tell them the collar they wear is a consideration collar and can be given back any time if this isn't for them..... no questions just give back but realize that when you do the relationship is broken and they  must leave,...,., if I see them at a play party ,, of course I will greet if they severed the tie in respect .. I tell them I will always be a safe cal for them and they will remain friends but never will serve Me again.


to say slavery comes with trust and time.... trust maybe but not time ... for a 24/7 maybe there are always stronger ties to a Lover/lover relationship but for a house slave .. as long as they understand what they are in for and they know what limits will be allowed .... there is NEVER un reversable slavery in BDSM.  dsame as there idsn;t criminal sadists in BDSM what those are  is simply Criminals and bad people not ones in the lifestyle.


and I am not saying to take anyones word that there safe and BDSM use your brain talk, use a safe call system ,if your spidy scense goes off .. don't do it ... listen to that little voice or feeling do NOT ignore it and don't mistake it for the thrill that the Dominate runs thru your veins

Madam Shy



meatcleaver -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 6:40:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so is this just some kind of dominant fanciful thinking then?  i see it all the time on here and elsewhere.  On the surface it seems plausible at least by definition where as it seems that a slave would be giving consent to a nonconsentual relationship by signing a contract of slavery.



Domination and submission in BDSM are ersatz experiences. They are fantasies and nothing more than that. Subs are in far more demand than Doms, just look at any personal columns so subs really has the power and the Dom just services the sub in reality. One might be able to satisfy ones fantasy as a dom in this plastic experience as long as one doesn't analyse ones true position too much.



Submotive -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 11:26:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The person consents one time to serve as a "slave" and upon thier consent they become an "owned slave" where all aspects of thier life are no longer consentual but nonconsentual for the duration of the contract or life.

Are there degrees or levels in this.  By the strict definition that many dominants use it would seem possibly not?  Often the words irrevocable are used.

at what point, if any, does a slave have the right of consentuality after enslavement and being "owned"?  

i think a person needs to understand themself very well. i would never agree to an irrevocable anything because i am always in the state of learning. With each new thing i learn, my perspectives and opinions are altered. If i had a Master who did not allow for my growth and change, i would be a miserable slave and He sure doesn't want that.



namasteguardian -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 2:19:49 PM)

Bottom line is that it is illegal for any person to own another person in this country. Period. The only way to completely lose your freedom is if the master locks you up and refuses to release you. That is called kidnapping and a whole bunch of other criminal terms, and if the master gets caught, he/she goes to jail for a long time. There are real slaves in this world, and yes, in the good ol' US of A. These are people who truly have no options, no choices. They live a cruel, hopeless and miserable life. That's the reality of slavery.

BDSM is about the fantasy of slavery. Any slave can consent to give up their consent. That puts them at the mercy of their Master who will do with them as they please, but only as long as the slave chooses to give up their consent. The power, ultimately, does rest with the slave, not the Master. Thank goodness there are slaves who adore being under the boot of a formidable, demanding and loving Master! [;)]

Namaste, Sir Dominic

"Life wasn't meant to be easy, but it is meant to be fun!"



starymists -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 2:31:07 PM)

My two cents on consentual nonconsent...
 
There are things I agreed to and things I didn't agree to. My dominant determines my appearance. He decides if, when and how I get marked. He picks my hair style and hair color. When he chooses, he determines my makeup and my clothing. Other times, he allows me to choose within his parameters. I do what I am told, when I'm told to do it. Those are areas I gave him control.
 
My limit to that control is permanant damage that alters my appearance *i.e. scarring*. I allow him control of my life, but I do not allow him to end my life. I agreed to allow him to use me so long as that use didn't require medical treatment after he was done. I agree to serve him, but I haven't agreed to break the law for him.
 
The boundaries of consent were a matter of a lot of conversation over 6 months. Within those boundaries, he has absolute say in what happens. In those areas he does not have control over, they tend to be things that would diminish my capacity to continue to serve him. They also tend to be things that he has absolutely no interest in controlling in the first place. Do those limits diminish him? No. They ensure that I can continue to serve his needs in at a consistent level. Is my contract legally enforceable? No. But it is something that is so central to both of us that we need nothing else to enforce it.
 
Yes, I can choose not to obey. I can choose to petition for release. I can do any number of things. And when I do those things, he has options of releasing me, lecturing me, punishing me, retraining me. But because I choose to obey, even when it may not be something I like, or want to do...thats the non-consent part of consentual, and tends to be the part that makes me feel safe, secure and content in my service.
 
Bottom line is, every day I choose to serve in whatever capacity he names. That is my pleasure. He chooses to allow that service in ways that please him. That is his pleasure. If there is an area in which we disagree, I address my concerns, he takes the time to think on those concerns and speak to those concerns, and at the end of the day, he will make a decision that I will agree to follow. Cuz that's how it works for us both to be nourished in our relationship.



sultryvoice -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 4:44:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

Here is my take on it.

We are human beings and as such every minute of every day we are making choices, consciously and unconsciously. Till the day we die, that is the fact.

I know some would not like to think this but in reality, a slave can walk out the door at any time, unless they are being held as an illegal slave in some kinda criminal organsiation.

Peoples thoughts and emotions  and promises can *bind* them to situations and it can appear that they no longer have a choice to leave but thats only an illusion, the reality is, they have two feet and can walk and never look back.

What a slave might agree to is the *terms* to which they will submit. Depending on the Master is how strict and all encompassing those terms may be. The slave could be irrevocably bound to these terms and to this commitment because the alternative is, that if broken, there is no longer a relationship. Thats a kind of irrevocability...but really...even then...the choice is still there and so is consensual.



This is how I see it also..Well put slavejali...

We all, no matter the relationship, can walk right out.None of the contracts are binding. Can't you see this taken to court? The Dominant would be arrested for slavery. Also, no attorney in his right mind would take it on. So, you see, it only means something to those involved.

Respectfully,
sultry



Phoenixandnika -> RE: Consentual NonConsentuality (3/28/2006 5:07:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


The person consents one time to serve as a "slave" and upon thier consent they become an "owned slave" where all aspects of thier life are no longer consentual but nonconsentual for the duration of the contract or life.

Are there degrees or levels in this.  By the strict definition that many dominants use it would seem possibly not?  Often the words irrevocable are used.

at what point, if any, does a slave have the right of consentuality after enslavement and being "owned"?  



I am going to tell a true story of a woman / slave that I meet while I was living in Las Vegas. She was 25 at the age of 17 she took the collar of her "master". This man was married and lived with his wife. This woman moved in with the man and his wife after sighning a contract and taking his collar. The woman was not to work outside his home, care for his 3 sons, the house work, all the cooking, she was also to meet his sexual desires when ever he demanded it. He also often lent her to friends for sexual use. After a time she got pregenant and had a beautiful little girl. She was told to sign over custody of her because he could provide health care , ect for her that way. He then became abusive , told the little girl she was simply a slave and not anything more. The woman finally left him after he broke her tail bone and said she could not seek medical care.
 
She then was drawn back to him because of the little girl. One night she agreed to meet with him the 3 of them spent the day together and she said she had a good time she tucked her daughter into bed(at the motel he had checked into) then he told her it was time for payement for him allowing her to see her. He tied her up and beat her to a bloody pulp.When he was done she called me in tears. Her current Mistress told her to go to the ER but under no circumstances was she to remove her collar. Well the womans collar bone was broke among things and the collar had to be removed. Her "Mistress" got upset because it was cut off in the ER.
 
I told her to walk away from both, her former "Master" and her current "Mistress"
 
Why did I post this story? Because she was under the impression that because she submitted to this man that she could not walk away. She was under the impression that this was okay because had conscented , begged to be his.
 
She did not understand that being a Master or Mistress meant taking responsiblity , meant protecting what is in your care, it did not give him the right to abuse her in anyway.
 
The moment someone is not okay with the situation within an M/s or D/s relatoinship or they are no longer in a healthy relationship damn skippy you can walk away.
 
A true dominate would not want it any other way. A true dominate would want you to be safe to feel safe. To be happy in your submission. They know its not simply about getting your way without consequences.
 
Sorry if this sounded like rambeling.
 
Nika{Phoenix}



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




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