RE: Consent (Full Version)

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



Message

leadership527 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 2:55:16 PM)

OK, I think I get it that I'm answering from the standpoint of long-term M/s relationships and the rules are, of course, vastly different for different circumstances. That being said, I'm intrigued by the "consent" topic so my comments follow:

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
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.

Heh, I am a "mind reader"... with a lot of folks and MOST ESPECIALLY with Carol. But I can't see anything, ever, that could untangle the morass of "consent" between her and I. Honestly, my impression (perhaps wrongly) is that as a concept, "consent" becomes more and more tenuous as the length of the relationship continues. In addition, the larger the NATIVE spread between D and S, the more vague "consent" becomes. If you think about the most doormattey doormat you can think of being in close proximity with the most strongly commanding and assertive personality you can imagine, then you begin to see why I mistrust "consent". Sure, sure she said "yes". But that "yes" becomes simply a reflection of my desire. There's no way to ever figure out if it was "yes, this is what I want" or "Yes, this is what you want". In fact, for Carol, those are almost one and the same.

In essence... the mere fact that it is in any way unpleasing to me is virtually "the point of a gun" for Carol. Hence, my statement that she cannot consent and virtually anything I do is "coercion".

quote:

The least ambiguous solution is to have some sort of agreement beforehand

Given what I said above, no agreement could possibly be un-ambiguous. The ambiguity is written into the core of our personalities. It cannot be removed with a piece of paper.

quote:

i don't believe that people can be "coerced" in any way that does not involve violence or physical restraints.

see above.

quote:

If someone influences me, it means i allowed it.

not in my world. I have influence a WHOLE TON of people who were actively averse to said influence. Saying they "allowed" it works at the surface level, but fails even one layer down. The thing that I think of when I use the word "dominance" does not need permission. It does not require consent. It need no charter or authorization. It is so because it is so.

quote:

i think it's the sub's responsibility to express nonconsent.

Agreed. But it's not Carol's responsibility nor is the responsibility of any slave I'd have. Their responsibility is simply to obey... period. That's inherent in the fact that Carol doesn't get to have "her own opinions". If I dislike an opinion of hers AND I believe that opinion is detrimental to our marriage, then I tell her to change it. So if I can really do that, where does she "consent"?? Effectively I can command her consent.

quote:

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.

Such a thing seems to me to be a "wise choice" when the trust is well placed. Otherwise, it'd be very unwise. And it's good to know what would work for you and what would not. To make it perfectly clear, I completely understand and agree with what you've said Pam. I'm just using it as a contrast to an entirely different viewpoint where things like "consent" just make no sense.



Aileen1968 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 4:10:42 PM)

*fast reply*
I'm always allowed to question why or motives behind his decisions and I'm definitely allowed to express displeasure.
He may answer me or tell me to shut up. (That always makes me laugh when he does that). His choice depending on his mood.
What I'm not allowed to do is to say no to anything he expects me to do or endure.

My brain doesn't turn off just because he doesn't feel the need to get my permission to do things.
In fact, I would find it tedious if he did that.
One of my biggest turnons is having no control.




gungadin09 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 4:11:51 PM)

Perhaps if every Master had Your character, there would be no need to worry about things like "trust", "consent", or "limits".

pam



sexyred1 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 4:19:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1
Oh, and someone mentioned the concept of LUCK. I don't care what anyone says about how they make good choices in men, blah blah blah. It is absolutely 100% about luck in your choices in partners, despite your thinking otherwise.

So although you may have enjoyed and agreed and bought into it all for all these years, one day, you may be unluckily enough to have that person change into someone you no longer trust. You may be able to work it out, or you may not.

Then all your consent and feeling you picked the right person fly out the window.


I'll be the first to admit that serendipity plays a big role in all of this. There are millions - billions - of people out there. In many ways it can be very akin to finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. I know in my case it was. We live in different states and casually crossed paths in an online venue not designed for meeting people like this place. I have to wonder how someone with such a cynical outlook on relationships even bothers with them in the first place. If we're all buying into some facade then aren't you, as well?



You are kidding me right? You don't know a thing about me, other than the moment I decide to type into the little box here.

My views are based on reality, not cynicism. I reply based on the topic and often like to give a differing view point to those involved.

If you call not running around with rose colored glasses on and trusting that every relationship you are in will be roses and rainbows forever so that you let your partner do anything to you without your consent and have it turn to abuse, cynical, then that is your perogative.

Why do I bother with relationships? Because a GOOD and HEALTHY one is worth it. A bullshit one where people are in it for the wrong reasons or for desperation, is not worth it.

Don't blithely discuss someone's attitude about relationships until you have walked in their high heels.  Get it?



laurell3 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 5:15:55 PM)

I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not going to. The idea that people continue to advance that legally you can consent to an unlawful act is erroneous. The idea that a "contract" will save you is exactly backwards. In fact, the contract may very will prove the crime against you should you land in court. That having been said, in many places these laws aren't enforced and the actual law enforcement authorities don't follow the letter of the law and do care if the act is consensual. Catch 22? Yes.

If you are engaging in bdsm with someone that has limited mental capacity due to mental illness, mental retardation or age, you can expect that the authorites may not turn that blind eye to the archaic laws that are often overlooked when law enforcement is called. Where there is a question of consent, those persons can NEVER give it and taking advantage of their limitations is never going to be looked at as something that our society approves of.

So why do we insist on consent if it's not to protect us legally? Because no one here really wants to engage in truly forced activites (presumably). I think the rule of thumb is quite simple. If there is ever a question whether you really have consent or not, don't do it. No still means no, even here. And, of course, choose your partners wisely, one unstable partner and an argument can mean a world of messy authority interaction that you do not want. Finally, talk to your partner, over and over if necessary to make sure you are both on the same page.



jujubeeMB -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 6:02:33 PM)

What I'm finding most fascinating about the responses on this thread is that they are actually quite varied. No one is talking about the same part of the consent issue, much less the wider concept of consent. There are people expressing how consent doesn't play a role in their dynamic, those expressing that it's something they're clear about to begin with, those expressing it's impossible to be clear about it and to go with your gut, those who want a written contract. Someone also mentioned that there's a difference between moral and legal consent, but then there's the issue that we can't legally consent to an illegal activity.

I would assume that, as real people practicing D/s (or M/s, or BDSM), you are all comfortable overlooking the legal ramifications of doing things to people that could land you in jail. So I don't think that legal consent in terms of activities is really the issue that I was trying to explore, since we all sort of feel the same about it (correct me if I'm wrong).

But as for the moral level of consent, I'm pretty fascinated by the difference of opinion. It's very subtle, but it's definitely there. Leadership pointed out that he thinks consent means the person choosing to consent must have at least one other viable, positive option (not meaning a relationship, but rather - I assume - a place to go, a support system, a job, etc) to constitute a healthy level of consent. But I know there are those who think that purely choosing to submit to someone - regardless of your situation - is consent. What do you guys think?

By the way, I do know that consensual non-consent is fantasy, but speaking as a particularly easy-to-influence sub, the lines do blur. I am enormously tough, and proud, and smart, etc, but given enough information about me, a talented Dom can change my answer from a genuine "no" to a genuine "yes." Is that not real consent? Is it absolutely real consent? Is it the words or the original impulse or the result?



gungadin09 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 6:17:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB

I am enormously tough, and proud, and smart, etc, but given enough information about me, a talented Dom can change my answer from a genuine "no" to a genuine "yes."


Sorry but, in my opinion, if that statement is true then you should not be involved in BDSM. If you truly can't tell the difference between what you consent to, and what you don't. No offense.

pam



Zevar -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 6:34:57 PM)

quote:

Don't blithely discuss someone's attitude about relationships until you have walked in their high heels. Get it?


Talking about “those” high-heels again, aye? [;)]

On another note: I do understand & agree that until someone has lived what another has experienced it is futile to pretend to begin to know what the experience produced.

Oh yes, before I close I wanted to say that I do hope you keep "those" high heels all clean & shiny!

Enough said!

Take good care of you!



jujubeeMB -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 6:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
quote:

ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB
I am enormously tough, and proud, and smart, etc, but given enough information about me, a talented Dom can change my answer from a genuine "no" to a genuine "yes."


Sorry but, in my opinion, if that statement is true then you should not be involved in BDSM. If you truly can't tell the difference between what you consent to, and what you don't. No offense.


Pam, ordinarily I like you and what you post, but don't do the telling people that they shouldn't be involved in BDSM thing. You're off base as far as I'm concerned (and I don't agree with your theory either), but did you not allow a Dom to do something that you didn't consent to, multiple times? Shouldn't you be telling yourself not to be involved in BDSM, by the standards you just set?



LadyRian -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 7:07:48 PM)

The way I see it is this. If your genuine "no" changed to a genuine "yes", then  you have genuinely consented to the action, and therefore have taken responsibility for your choice.  The operative phrase here is "genuine." Very important. If you've changed your mind, it's still your mind, and you are in control of it.  I feel that if someone is truly uncomfortable with something,  they can't be influenced into genuine consent.
Co-opted to acquiesce, perhaps, and possibly unhappily so.   However acquiescence is to me, a different  concept altogether than actual consent.



Twoshoes -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 7:22:32 PM)

My best effort, while listening to loud music:
Informed consent has certain inherent preconditions. Aside from that:

Consent legally:
For physical things:
  1. can consent to in Canada (beating me with a stick, slapping me in the face and calling me anything but a girly name);
  2. can consent to but are suspicious and likely to get you to the police department for interrogation anyway. (like driving around with me kidnapped in your trunk);
  3. can consent to but are illegal (like branding);
  4. cannot possibly consent to, because no sane person would do that. (I like my 10 fingers and both my kidneys - thank you).



As you can see, the person in control can easily land in jail or get a fine by doing anything from 2-4.
The dumbest thing I can think of is some sort of "prostitution fantasy". Gratification - low. Capacity for ruining your life - high.
As someone living in a free country, I reserve the right to refuse to do things that may legally endanger me.

Psychologically, you could prove someone isn't in a state able to give informed consent - as defined in the link above (due to emotional abuse, blackmail, duress, etc). Hard to prove.

Morally:
Find a Dominant who recycles (seriously). [;)]

I understand some of the above examples where there simply is implied trust. However, notice that those Dominants still keep track of how the Submissives are being affected by things.

Here is how I see it:
A Dominant can probably get you to consent to something under duress or with manipulation.
That is why someone who values their relationship will only attempt to negotiate these things* and/or assess them afterwards with someone calm and collected.

*Depending on the dynamic.
 
That was the reason for that quote by LadyPact (that only Shadow-Tiger read [8|]).
It explains how to ensure overall stability if you're involving negative emotions. Fear counts. Coercion involves fear.

To try to figure out how to do that without emotionally damaging someone? My example: I dislike roller-coasters. However, if I were coerced by a Domme to go on one, I wouldn't be permanently damaged. I've made myself go on them. <=Don't get any ideas, this isn't consent - lol.
 
Reassurance and asking many questions after the fact would be the way to keep things smooth. Mistakes maybe, but hopefully nothing unforgivable.

quote:


fear of being left by a partner, fear of losing custody of children, etc?


It would create "fear" 24/7 and it doesn't fit the model I described.

Doing something out of fear isn't the same as consenting to something out of fear.

On a side note, some Dominants won't do certain things with people they are too worried of hurting emotionally. (Again LadyPact's quote.)

In conclusion, find someone responsible. Profit!



gungadin09 -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 7:34:53 PM)

[/quote]

Pam, ordinarily I like you and what you post, but don't do the telling people that they shouldn't be involved in BDSM thing. You're off base as far as I'm concerned (and I don't agree with your theory either), but did you not allow a Dom to do something that you didn't consent to, multiple times? Shouldn't you be telling yourself not to be involved in BDSM, by the standards you just set?
[/quote]

No, because i did consent. By not saying "no", i did consent. It was stupid, and i shouldn't have done it, but by saying nothing i consented just as surely as if i had said "i consent". The decision was my own, as the consequences would have been if i had gotten pregnant. IT WAS MY OWN FAULT.

i'm sorry if i was out of line. It sounded like what you were saying was that you're so influencible that when you say "yes" you're not sure if you really mean it. If that is true, then i truly believe that you shouldn't be involved in these activities. You need to KNOW if you consent. You need to know it AT THE TIME. You need to know that you will not go home and change you're mind about what happened. You need to know that you're not just saying "yes" because you're under somebody's influence. You need to know that because people's lives hang in the balance and it's irresponsible not to mean "yes" when you say it. Because people can get hurt, and reputations can be damaged forever, if you change your mind about whether or not you really consented. Know what i mean? i think you better make sure, first.

i reckon you really do know whether or not you consent. Like you say, you're a strong, intelligent woman, and you have a mind of your own. Even if someone persuades you to do something, you know that your still the one making the choice at the end of the day, and that you will have to live by the consequences of that choice.

Anyway, that's all i was saying. Sorry if i gave offense.

pam



Twoshoes -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 7:49:43 PM)

Oh goodness, pam, you brought "implied consent" into this.

I think my previous post describes how to obtain consent while someone is capable of doing so.

Personally, I think you're underestimating a Dominant's capacity to influence people and push their agenda. (Especially in moments of emotional vulnerability.)
I'm not even close to very Dominant, but I remember plenty of times that I have had to stop myself from doing both those things because I didn't want to be responsible for the consequences.

Now, don't tell anyone I told you this, but some Dominants are responsible people. (The key is in the recycling.)
Edit: I suck at writing.



mstrjx -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 8:07:50 PM)

You know......

It doesn't require a hypnotist to get someone to do what they don't believe they are capable of doing, or getting someone to say things they would not normally say otherwise.

It doesn't require a raised voice.  In fact, slower and quieter usually work inordinately well.

All it requires is a shred of desire.  Those who know how can take care of the rest.  And make it look 'so' easy getting it done.

Jeff



jujubeeMB -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 8:32:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
i'm sorry if i was out of line. It sounded like what you were saying was that you're so influencible that when you say "yes" you're not sure if you really mean it. If that is true, then i truly believe that you shouldn't be involved in these activities. You need to KNOW if you consent. You need to know it AT THE TIME. You need to know that you will not go home and change you're mind about what happened. You need to know that you're not just saying "yes" because you're under somebody's influence. You need to know that because people's lives hang in the balance and it's irresponsible not to mean "yes" when you say it. Because people can get hurt, and reputations can be damaged forever, if you change your mind about whether or not you really consented. Know what i mean? i think you better make sure, first.

i reckon you really do know whether or not you consent. Like you say, you're a strong, intelligent woman, and you have a mind of your own. Even if someone persuades you to do something, you know that your still the one making the choice at the end of the day, and that you will have to live by the consequences of that choice.

Anyway, that's all i was saying. Sorry if i gave offense.


No offense taken. I was just surprised you would say that.

I do have to respond rather strongly to the part where you mention reputations being damaged forever, though. First of all, just because someone realizes later that something they consented to wasn't something they liked doesn't mean they are automatically the type of person to report someone to the authorities. I don't know anyone who has ever falsely accused anyone else of rape, but I do know a lot of people who have been raped and never said anything. So I don't personally believe it's a huge danger, though I know a lot of men seem to be terrified of it.

Looking beyond the false accusation fear, because what I really want to discuss has nothing to do with legality, I'm afraid I have to really disagree with your assessment that a person who can be influenced to say "yes" when they originally wanted to say "no" shouldn't be in BDSM. Actually, I think those people ought to be in a good, healthy D/s or M/s relationship, where they can safely follow their need to be influenced.

Is it really up to me, in the end, to decide to give in or not? Yes, of course. But I have made decisions not to do something that I meant that changed under strong influence. I like what LadyRian mentioned about the key word being "genuine" - if I change my mind from a genuine "no" to a genuine "yes," then it's all healthy and good and can be discussed later at great length. But sometimes as a sub you say yes because you want to please, and sometimes subspace makes you agree to all sorts of things you wouldn't agree to over coffee at Starbucks. I don't think it makes anyone irresponsible to delve into the blurriness of that, though I do pretty much believe it's the Dom's responsibility to make sure that things agreed to in subspace are agreed to in stark daylight before acting on them.



jujubeeMB -> RE: Consent (9/21/2010 8:36:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mstrjx
You know......

It doesn't require a hypnotist to get someone to do what they don't believe they are capable of doing, or getting someone to say things they would not normally say otherwise.

It doesn't require a raised voice.  In fact, slower and quieter usually work inordinately well.

All it requires is a shred of desire.  Those who know how can take care of the rest.  And make it look 'so' easy getting it done.


Ok, yum. [:)]



ranja -> RE: Consent (9/22/2010 2:15:35 AM)

Pam, i really liked your post 98
i think the same



Twoshoes -> RE: Consent (9/23/2010 7:16:14 AM)

Speaking of convincing Dominants,
porcelaine could probably convince me, you and anyone else of just about anything. [;)]

Edit: Link. 



CelticPrince -> RE: Consent (9/24/2010 1:35:38 PM)

quote:

An argument going on in another thread has got me thinking about the issue of consent. The actual argument (and thread) doesn't matter here (seriously, do not bring that argument over here if it can be helped, please), but some of the issues seem to be as follows:

How do you know someone is truly consenting and not just consenting out of fear, whether that fear be fear of punishment, fear of being left by a partner, fear of losing custody of children, etc? Is it wrong if they're consenting out of fear? How do you obtain and trust consent when consensual (or non-consensual) conditioning is going on? And who is unfit to consent, and why?

I have very strong opinions about how important informed consent is, but I'm also someone who gets a lot of pleasure out of the concept of conditioning and consensual non-consent, so I find myself wondering at what point the line blurs into non-consent? Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.


jujubee,

It used to be that a contract of understanding was signed by both parties. I always updated mine each month to be on the safe side; but nowadays that seems to have gone by the wayside in favor of verble trust.

CP



txurinal -> RE: Consent (9/26/2010 9:29:54 AM)

When i first met the MASTER i see regulary now, i consented to give HIM power over me. Now having said that, when this "relationship" started it was very different from what it has become years later. The reason is being comfortable with the person one is with and being able to trust that person.

When we are together, HE is completely in charge and by being HIS slave, i have consented to HIM making all decisions and sessions proceeding the way HE wants them to that will please HIM. As someone stated earlier, a slave and a submissive are different. Once one "consents' to being a slave, he or she is agreeing to now having the right to consent or not taken from them.

i am basing this of course that the MASTER or MISTRESS is not a crazy lunatic who will do harm to THEIR slave. When having a session, there are times when things are done to me that i might not consent to if asked, but i gave up the right to be asked, but since i have trust in HIM and know i will never be pushed beyond my limits. HE knows where i can go and sometimes takes me a little farther but i have never feared for my safety. Once i became HIS slave, saying no was no longer an option and HE has never given me a reason to regret that decision

We all know slavery is not legal so i guess every time i see HIM and HE restrains me, i have technically consented to it but again, i trust HIM. Trust has to be the basis for anyone to consent to another and not just sexually but in many aspects of life



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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