Wheldrake
Posts: 477
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wheldrake
someone I really, really trusted, obviously
What I find interesting in your accounts of short term play and long term dynamic is that you tell a story of something going wrong within a long term dynamic but mentioned that for a short term you would do this with someone you really, really trusted.
If I were a sub/slave, my mentality would be the absolute opposite. I would have really well outlined limits for short term play and work on developing a dynamic of trust where limits would be understood but their management would be left to the top because I knew the top had my best interest at heart.
- LA
I didn't mean to imply that different levels of trust would be needed for the two situations. Personally, I would need to trust someone quite a bit before I let her make me physically helpless, even in a short-term situation, and I would also need to trust someone before I entered into a relationship in which it was understood that she could do what she wanted to me without any further need to obtain consent.
By "trust", though, I mean that I would need to trust her - in either case - not to do anything that was going to seriously damage my health, sanity, career, family relationships, etc. I don't mean that I would need to trust her not to put me in genuine distress, because I would want moments of genuine distress - really not liking what was happening, perhaps wishing I could just run away and hide under the bed instead of having to endure even five seconds of additional pain/fear/humiliation - to be a possibility, and preferably a virtual certainty. I realise that not all masochists want this, but I do.
The difference between my concept of C/NC and what I would call "implied consent" lies in what happens during those moments of wanting to run away and hide under the bed. Imagine a submissive bending over for the paddle, "holding position" but not restrained in any way. As the pain of the beating increases, he finds himself wanting to escape, and it's certainly physically possible: not being bound, he could straighten up and run away at any moment. What keeps him in place is perhaps dutiful obedience, desire to please his mistress, or pride in his ability to endure - we can imagine all kinds of possible motivations, but the point is that the beating will continue only as long as he maintains his decision not to run away. I would say that "implied consent" is in place as long as the submissive chooses not to avail himself of this option. If he does run away, implied consent becomes non-consent, and the beating stops because, well, he's in the next room hiding under the bed. So this falls short of C/NC because the first moment of real NC makes the previously given C irrelevant.
Now imagine the same submissive allowing himself to be firmly tied down. At the beginning of the process he says to the dominant, "Yes, you can tie me to the bed and thrash me as hard you want, and you don't have to let me up no matter what I say or do." Once the last knot is in place, the dominant grins and promptly opens fire, subjecting the submissive to a beating that goes well beyond what he would find enjoyable or easy to endure. Thanks to the ropes, the option to run away doesn't even exist, so the dominant has a level of "total control" that was missing in the previous case. This is the kind of situation where what I would call C/NC becomes a real possibility. The submissive might get to the point where he would escape if he could, but wouldn't be going anywhere because of the restraints. He could scream "I am no longer consenting to this!" at the top of his lungs, but the pain would still continue until the dominant chose to make it stop. The situation is consensual because the submissive originally agreed that the dominant could tie him down and then do what she wanted, but also non-consensual because he would now run away and hide under the bed, pride and obedience be damned, if it weren't for the ropes around his wrists and ankles.
Sorry about rambling on, but I hope the point is clear. The possibility of C/NC exists, as I see it, only as long as the dominant can make it impossible (or at least unthinkable) for the submissive to escape or protect himself. In the short term, inescapable bondage accomplishes this quite nicely. In the long term, it's not really possible in our society [forlorn sigh], although I suppose strategies like blackmail would go some way towards establishing the necessary level of control. The test is that, when the submissive says "I withdraw consent", the dominant has to have the practical option of looking him in the eye, saying "You already agreed to this, so tough shit," and continuing to do precisely what she was doing before.
|
RE: Consensual/Non-Consensual Play - 
Profile
Because i am sure Your own limits would preclude me from having to be concerned with illegal activities, permanent injury, etc.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread