|
gungadin09 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 1:54:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NuevaVida
Consent is a complex subject for me. People consent all the time to things they really don't want, for all sorts of reasons.
Ultimately, we need to take accountability for our decisions, and reconcile those decisions within ourselves. I have consented to being abused in the past, because I thought I deserved it. I have changed significantly, and would not consent to such treatment again.
I just had a conversation with Mr. Man last night, in which I said for the good of us and our relationship, I have to speak up when something doesn't sit right, as opposed to just going along with it and pretending things are ok. There are things I can't give him right now and be OK with. If he required them of me anyway, I would probably do it. Not out of fear or anything like that, but because I am getting to the point where I am driven from within to do what he wants.
i think my opinion simply boils down to this. Coersion is what you do at the point of a gun; what you do when you feel your safety is threatened if you don't comply. Those kinds of situations may happen in BDSM. It may be ambiguous to a Dom, who, however intelligent, is no "mind reader", whether a sub is truly consenting to an activity or not.
The least ambiguous solution is to have some sort of agreement beforehand, whether written or oral, that outlines what may and may not be done. It sounds like that doesn't often happen in real life because it's a buzzkill. Subs like the excitement of not knowing what's going to happen, and Doms like the freedom of doing whatever they want.
So it's a matter of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. Playing with no discussion of limits or safewords is a calculated risk. Particularly when your partner is someone you barely know. It's the same as ordering rare beef in a restaurant. You know it's safer to eat it well done, but you like it rare. Well, then you're taking a risk. You know it could turn out badly, but you've accepted that because you know that it could also turn out really well.
Life is all about managing risks, isn't it? When you don't risk at all you have no joy. If you risk too much, you could wind up dead. So you minimize the risks as best you can (in this case, by choosing your partner wisely), and then you roll the dice, and what will be will be. No way to get around it, is there? No matter what precautions you take, in the end it's just a leap of faith. For some people, that trust will be rewarded. For others, not. These are the risks that we all take.
i don't believe that people can be "coerced" in any way that does not involve violence or physical restraints. Anything else isn't "coersion" at all, but rather "influence" or "manipulation". Do Doms influence subs? Of course. The difference is that the sub has a choice. They had the opportunity to say "no", or just walk out. They had the opportunity to EXPRESS nonconsent. They had the opportunity to say so when those lines began to get blurry. They had a MOUTH. They should use it.
i don't believe that being a sub means i have no brain. If someone influences me, it means i allowed it. i consented. If someone talks me into doing something i don't want to do, i have no one to blame but myself. i'm not an automaton. i don't HAVE to please anyone, no matter how much i want to. Nobody forces me to do anything. i let them. And, having done that, i must accept the consequences.
That first scene with my old Master, when He beat the crap out of me and then fucked me without a condom- i think it's debatable at that point whether or not i was consenting. I was afraid. i was in the middle of nowhere. i had no clothes and no way home. Did i really have another choice? i don't know. But when i continued to see Him and let Him do these things- at that point i was clearly consenting. There is no law that prevents people from making stupid decisions, of their own free will. As long as i'm "mentally fit" to make that decision, then the consequences are my own fault.
i'd like to answer a question that was posed earlier in the thread; the one that asked whether you practice consent by the moral definition or the legal one. i'm going to tweek the question a bit, since there is no "legal" definition of consent, or, in fact, any ONE definition of consent for the entire BDSM community. It was explained that the "moral definition" meant that it's the Dom's responsibility not to do anything that would emotionally harm the sub, regardless of whether it's been consented to. i'm going to change the phrase "legal consent" to "expressed consent", and say that the "expressed definition" of consent means that it's the Dom's responsibility to stop doing anything that the sub has expressed nonconsent to. The question then becomes, whose responsibility is it to know when the line has been crossed; when a scene (or relationship, conditioning, behavior, etc) has gone too far? Is it the Dom's responsibility to judge that, or is it the sub's responsibility to express it outright?
i think it's the sub's responsibility to express nonconsent. i think that the Dom should not be held responsible for reading the sub's mind. Nobody can really do that. If the sub withdraws consent for an activity, it is their responsibility to say so. Which also means that it's their responsibility to KNOW whether or not they consent, as it would be for any other activity (for example, sex between two vanilla partners). Then, once the sub withdraws consent, it's the Dom's responsibility to stop.
i hope i'm not offending anyone. i'm glad that there such successful relationships that are based on one person implicitly trusting another with their whole soul. But i'm not sure if that's the wisest choice, and i'm almost certain that it's not me. i don't consent only once, and to the relationship. Consent is something that i evaluate on an ongoing basis.
pam
|
|
|
|
