RE: Thanks for the permission

RE: Thanks for the permission (Full Version)

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

Message

RCdc -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 2:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact So, let's talk about dynamics where the submissive is giving permission to the Dominant. Thoughts? It's their relationship, so they can do whatever suits them.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladypact If clip doesn't submit to decision X, he is free to leave the dynamic. That's the bottom line for us. It's either submit or don't. There is no he 'gives me permission' to do anything. Yes, he does, every time he does not leave your "dynamic." That's why, barring criminal acts by the dominant, the submissive wields the final say-so, because he or she is always free to say "Enough, catch ya later." quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes I also think some of that "the sub "allowed" the dom to do X" type language might just be the language of someone who lives by the "the sub is really the one in control" philosophy. Hey, we got all kinds :) It's not a "philosophy," it's the way things are. If you are the dominant and I your submissive and you want to do something to me and I don't want you to do it to me, there is nothing you can do, without breaking the law, if I don't cooperate.

LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:09:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Yes, he does, every time he does not leave your "dynamic." That's why, barring criminal acts by the dominant, the submissive wields the final say-so, because he or she is always free to say "Enough, catch ya later." As am I. The same as the premise of if he doesn't submit, I'm out. One of these days, I'm seriously going to sit here and make a list of every "criminal" activity that I've engaged in during the course of BDSM, just so we can get past the argument of what's legal and illegal.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As am I. The same as the premise of if he doesn't submit, I'm out. Yes. How is that relevant? quote: One of these days, I'm seriously going to sit here and make a list of every "criminal" activity that I've engaged in during the course of BDSM, just so we can get past the argument of what's legal and illegal. Unless you live in a jurisdiction where certain sexual acts are illegal, as long as you have his consent, it's not illegal. "Consent" (and other legal jiggery-pokery) is the difference between a brawl and a boxing match.

LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:21:18 PM)
I currently live in CA. In this state, you can not consent to be beaten. I have no authority (from a medical license perspective) to be doing any form of medical 'play'. Kidnapping is illegal in all fifty states. Branding a human being is also an offense that can be prosecuted. The law actually doesn't have a separate statute for an act being legal just because it's part of BDSM from the same act when it's not.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I currently live in CA. In this state, you can not consent to be beaten. You can't? Then how are their legal boxing matches in California? quote: I have no authority (from a medical license perspective) to be doing any form of medical 'play'. You're not doing medical play for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, so you're not practicing medicine without a license. quote: Kidnapping is illegal in all fifty states. If you have someone's consent, it's not kidnapping. quote: Branding a human being is also an offense that can be prosecuted. What? You can go into tattoo parlors and get decorative branding. After you sign the consent form. The law actually doesn't have a separate statute for an act being legal just because it's part of BDSM from the same act when it's not. Yes, the law does. In some jurisdictions there are activities to which one cannot consent. Here, start your research: http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Check out Penal Code section 412 for a rather lengthy description of illegal boxing (along with the requirements for a legal boxing match).

allthatjaz -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 3:56:01 PM)
What is this punishment that she needs to give permission for? There is an element in our relationship which is beyond D/s and where we take equal responsibility. In other words our relationship with maisy-jayne goes beyond D/s. maisy-jayne worked along side me during my club days and she knows all too well that if someone pisses me off I will let them know about it in no uncertain terms. She also knows that she has only annoyed me enough once that I had to sort her out but punishment wasn't 25 strokes of the cane or standing in the corner for two hours. It was in her face with me angry and her being sorry. I'm sure she does consider that was a punishment and I'm certain she has never forgotten but my reaction at the time was not about dominance and submission, it was about being angry with someone I am emotionally attached to. One of the things maisy-jayne has never been asked is how does she feel about punishment or that we want her consent just in case we need to punish her in future. We are in a relationship and I don't need permission to speak my mind. I don't see physical punishment as appropriate because A) I'm a sadist and B) she is a masochist and C) My authority comes without question and so if I was to physically punish her to re-assert my authority then it would feel like nothing more than a game. How many times have I read on these and other forums subs speaking of their physical punishment or subs saying in a chat room 'I'm in so much trouble when he gets home' They are loving it, they are bragging about it, they want all the other subs to be envious of them because to them punishment is hot. They may pretend they are dreading it but where is their shame, why are they telling us about it? A sadist that insists that he will physically punish his sub isn't doing it to re-assert his authority. He is doing it for him because that's what he enjoys doing. I don't care how serious the look on his face is or how much he tells her that he's hating this more than her. Its a lie. He's loving it and that's why he's here doing what he's doing. If he turned her to face him and told her that she should be ashamed of her actions, that he was highly disappointed with her then that's punishment. That sinks in and she is hardly going to go off and brag about it. He doesn't need her permission or her forward consent to speak his mind. She can be put in her place or fight back but whatever she does its the real thing.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 4:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allthatjaz How many times have I read on these and other forums subs speaking of their physical punishment or subs saying in a chat room 'I'm in so much trouble when he gets home' They are loving it, they are bragging about it, they want all the other subs to be envious of them because to them punishment is hot. Exactly. quote: They may pretend they are dreading it but where is their shame, why are they telling us about it? Double exactly. quote: A sadist that insists that he will physically punish his sub isn't doing it to re-assert his authority. He is doing it for him because that's what he enjoys doing. I don't care how serious the look on his face is or how much he tells her that he's hating this more than her. Its a lie. He's loving it and that's why he's here doing what he's doing. Triple exactly. quote: If he turned her to face him and told her that she should be ashamed of her actions, that he was highly disappointed with her then that's punishment. That sinks in and she is hardly going to go off and brag about it. He doesn't need her permission or her forward consent to speak his mind. She can be put in her place or fight back but whatever she does its the real thing. Of course. And she can exercise her ultimate authority within the relationship: she can leave.

AquaticSub -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 4:03:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain You can't? Then how are their legal boxing matches in California? Boxing matches, the last time I checked, rarely involve floggers, singletails, cupping sets, strappings and strap-ons. Of course, if they've made changes to the rules, I may become interested in the sport.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 4:05:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Boxing matches, the last time I checked, rarely involve floggers, singletails, cupping sets, strappings and strap-ons. And this is relevant how? Find me some law in California which states that being hit with an object is an act to which one cannot consent.

LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 4:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain You can't? Then how are their legal boxing matches in California? Yes, and licensed to be so. Two differences. I have no license and My play partners don't fight back unless we're doing resistance play. quote: You're not doing medical play for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment, so you're not practicing medicine without a license. You're right, dude. I'm just cutting people up with a scalpel. I'm sure cops would have no issue with that as long as I don't actually cut something off. quote: If you have someone's consent, it's not kidnapping. Remind Me to use that excuse should I ever get pulled over while the person in the backseat is tied up. quote: What? You can go into tattoo parlors and get decorative branding. After you sign the consent form. Yep. Check the business license on the wall. I must have misplaced Mine. quote: Yes, the law does. In some jurisdictions there are activities to which one cannot consent. Which is exactly what I said. Hell, I could have been arrested for sodomy laws in some states. quote: Here, start your research: http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Check out Penal Code section 412 for a rather lengthy description of illegal boxing (along with the requirements for a legal boxing match). You might want to notice the difference between a sporting event and BDSM.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 4:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladypact You might want to notice the difference between a sporting event and BDSM. You might want to notice that both involve some serious consensual physical contact. You're just conjecturing that anything you've done in connection with your D/s relationship is illegal in California. Just so we're clear, here is "sexual battery" in California (Penal Code section 243.4(a)): Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, and if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of sexual battery. One wore for ya: pro-dommes. And here is kidnapping (Penal Code section 207(a)): Every person who forcibly, or by any other means of instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any person in this state, and carries the person into another country, state, or county, or into another part of the same county, is guilty of kidnapping. If the target consents, there's no force.

AquaticSub -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 5:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Boxing matches, the last time I checked, rarely involve floggers, singletails, cupping sets, strappings and strap-ons. And this is relevant how? Find me some law in California which states that being hit with an object is an act to which one cannot consent. Of course it's relevant. You brought up boxing, which doesn't involve any of the common elements of a BDSM scene as it's two people with gloves each fighting each other, not one tied, bound and gagged and being hit with an object. Now, if you want to say there isn't a law restricting one's ability to consent to being hit with an object, go for it. But the fact is that your comparison was incredibly flawed to the point of being useless in the discussion. If you want to defend your position, why don't you go find the sexual laws and site them instead of making comparisons that have nothing to do with BDSM. Hell, you could have at least used horse-racing. They have crops. Is that legal out there? It would be a more adapt comparison.

AquaticSub -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 5:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain If the target consents, there's no force. Yup. At least, that is how it should be. Tell you what, since there are obliviously no legal problems with BDSM, you go tell all the folks who have lost their kids or had unpleasant encounters with law enforcement that there was all a big misunderstanding and you'll be representing them in court. I'm sure you'll clear everything up.

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 5:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain You can't? Then how are their legal boxing matches in California? If I implement what I've "learned" from you, I'd say RED HERRING!!!! Instead, I'd like to point out to you that you're committing a fallacy of weak induction here. Unlike what you usually do, I'll even support that claim by explaining why... In boxing, if either party would yell out "stop", "no more", "please don't", "no I don't want to" and so on, the fight would be over. In BDSM activities often continue after this happens. In boxing, people consent precisely and explicitly to the kind of attacks they allow on themselves (namely those legal in boxing). In BDSM, the submissive can have no idea whatsoever to what's going to happen, and the dominant may do totally new things to them that have never been priorly discussed. Considering that thus the submissive cannot possible have given informed consent, and may further be tied up, blindfolded, gagged and frightened while dominant introduces the new activity, there is no way they even legally COULD consent to the activity, on the spot.

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 5:29:22 PM)
At the risk of resorting to an explanation that will tumble into an recurring antiquated discussion, this seems like the reason that definitions of certain dynamics exist (in this case, D/s vs. M/s): in order to explain degrees of expectation. What this seems to be about is the question of how much blanket control is yielded at the outset of a relationship. With comprehensive control, LP's explanation makes sense: either the submissive abides by the decisions of the dominant or there is no longer a dynamic of consistent obedience. With partial control, people act with a default presumption that the dominant partner will make the decisions, but each new/unforeseen situation is treated as a new element to choose whether to relinquish control over or not (thus, the sub permitting the dominant control over each new possible situation as it arises). I really think it's a good clue as to whether people see their preferred dynamic as D/s or M/s.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 6:41:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Now, if you want to say there isn't a law restricting one's ability to consent to being hit with an object, go for it. I just did, and thanks for noticing quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr If I implement what I've "learned" from you, I'd say RED HERRING!!!! And in your case, you'd be wrong. It's fascinating that people seem to be arguing that what they are doing in their D/s relationships is illegal. If only a pro-domme would weigh in and clear this all up.

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 7:08:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain It's fascinating that people seem to be arguing that what they are doing in their D/s relationships is illegal. If only a pro-domme would weigh in and clear this all up. Pro-dommes get explicit, and often written consent from their clients for every act going on in the session, prior to the session. If a dominant ties up a submissive, blindfolds and gags them and then, without ever having discussed or even mentioning electrical play of any kind to the submissive, brings out a taser and shocks the submissive repeatedly in the genitalia, with the submissive meanwhile screaming unintelligible in their gag... Is what the dominant is doing legal? If so, please explain why...

IronBear -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 7:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Something that I've been seeing on a few threads lately that I was thinking might make for a good conversation. Here are a couple of examples: "I allowed her to come and stay in Master's home." "The sub allows the Dom to punish." Am I the only Dominant on these boards that wonders where all of this allowance and permission is coming from on the submissive side of the kneel? It really doesn't work like that in our dynamic. In our case, it's more like this: I make decision X. I expect clip to submit to decision X. If clip doesn't submit to decision X, he is free to leave the dynamic. That's the bottom line for us. It's either submit or don't. There is no he 'gives Me permission' to do anything. Knowing the terms of what this dynamic entailed before he became collared to Me was when he had to decide if he could live with it or not. Anything that he can't live with now means that he needs to release himself and I find someone who will. So, let's talk about dynamics where the submissive is giving permission to the Dominant. Thoughts? BRAVA LP!!!! I couldn't have said it better. I can see of no other way things in our home could work. [sm=yourock.gif]

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:06:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Pro-dommes get explicit, and often written consent from their clients for every act going on in the session, prior to the session. By acquiescing to the dominant's behavior, the submissive is implicitly consenting. If consent could not be implied, then every time two people have sex they would have to explicitly grant permission to each other prior to having sex. I have a hunch it doesn't work that way for most people. And I imagine every pro-domme who is not a complete idiot has her clients sign a consent form.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875