RE: Thanks for the permission

RE: Thanks for the permission (Full Version)

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

Message

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:15:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain 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. Sex is implied consensual because one can notify the other person the moment they withdraw consent. That means if somebody does not express that they withdraw consent, either vocally or by resisting, they are implicitly consenting. People in personal relationships usually don't sign consent forms. In a personal relationship -with no consent forms in place- 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... The submissive cannot withdraw consent, either vocally or by resisting. As such, the situation is not the same as the one where consent is implied during sex, by not protesting or by not resisting. Is what the dominant is doing legal? If so, explain why.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr People in personal relationships usually don't sign consent forms. No, they don't. And a D/s relationship is as much a personal relationship as a vanilla relationship is. quote: 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... The submissive cannot withdraw consent, either vocally or by resisting. Then the dominant had better hope the submissive is OK, after the fact, with having been tied up and tasered, eh? Otherwise, the dominant has just committed aggravated sexual battery. I bet most dominants are not going to take that chance.

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Then the dominant had better hope the submissive is OK, after the fact, with having been tied up and tasered, eh? Otherwise, the dominant has just committed aggravated sexual battery. I bet most dominants are not going to take that chance. That wasn't the question... The point is that there are many BDSM dynamics where the dominant doesn't explicitly establish consent in situations like these, and that fact by itself is enough to make what they're doing illegal. For consent to be valid, it needs to be given informed, without pressure and PRIOR to the act taking place. The fact that the submissive doesn't press charges afterwards doesn't make the act legal, either during the facts or afterwards. Rape doesn't become legal because the victim refuses to press charges...

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:49:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr The point is that there are many BDSM dynamics where the dominant doesn't explicitly establish consent Yeah, that's why I mentioned "implied consent." quote: in situations like these, and that fact by itself is enough to make what they're doing illegal. Absent consent, what the dominant is doing (in your previous "genital tasering" scenario) is illegal. Absent consent, sexual intercourse is illegal. Absent consent, you taking my lawn mower is illegal. Now you always have the defense that you thought you had consent. But it'd be a lot easier for you to argue you thought you had consent to take my lawn mower than to argue that you thought you had consent to taser my genitals. quote: For consent to be valid, it needs to be given informed, without pressure and PRIOR to the act taking place. Yes, that explains why before two people have sex, they should always get each others' express consent. Where's my "rolls eyes" emoticon?

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 8:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr in situations like these, and that fact by itself is enough to make what they're doing illegal. Absent consent, what the dominant is doing (in your previous "genital tasering" scenario) is illegal. Absent consent, sexual intercourse is illegal. Absent consent, you taking my lawn mower is illegal. Now you always have the defense that you thought you had consent. But it'd be a lot easier for you to argue you thought you had consent to take my lawn mower than to argue that you thought you had consent to taser my genitals. Absent consent is illegal, therefore, I've witnessed and engaged in many BDSM play scenes that where illegal. Why on Earth are you arguing that LadyPact is wrong when she says that she's engaged in illegal activities within BDSM contexts, when you obviously believe it's very possible that she has? Why do you feel the need to tell strangers that YOU know better who they are and what they've done than they know themselves?

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Why on Earth are you arguing that LadyPact is wrong when she says that she's engaged in illegal activities within BDSM contexts, when you obviously believe it's very possible that she has? She said she engaged in non-consensual activities? I must have missed that. The only illegal activity I noticed was carrying someone in her trunk. That would violate California's mandatory seatbelt law, and the law requiring that passengers travel in a seat designed specifically for that purpose. quote: Why do you feel the need to tell strangers that YOU know better who they are and what they've done than they know themselves? Because the way people claim they are behaving is not how people work. Are you seriously suggesting that there are hordes of dominants out there risking prosecution just to get there rocks off? I'm sure there are some who are breaking the law, but to read some of the claims here (and other places), you'd think it's the norm. I guarantee you, it is not the norm. Most people do not want to take a chance on being prosecuted for (aggravated) sexual battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc.

NocturnalStalker -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:10:02 PM)
Can't you see you're both in love?

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:13:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker Can't you see you're both in love? Yes, but with whom? There's a reason I don't look at the gorean forum. My head would explode.

NocturnalStalker -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:20:39 PM)
Eachother.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker You crossed me. Everyone needs a hobby.

AquaticSub -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: 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 No you made a terrible comparison and got called on it. Then you redefined to make yourself look clever and got snippy. By the way... I know pro-dommes very well. And they contradict your BS that this is all fine and dandy with the law and take extreme precautions to protect themselves. What we do may not be illegal by the letter of the law in some states however that doesn't actually protect us when people don't believe us that things are consensual.So the law you are quoting means very little.

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Why on Earth are you arguing that LadyPact is wrong when she says that she's engaged in illegal activities within BDSM contexts, when you obviously believe it's very possible that she has? She said she engaged in non-consensual activities? I must have missed that. The only illegal activity I noticed was carrying someone in her trunk. That would violate California's mandatory seatbelt law, and the law requiring that passengers travel in a seat designed specifically for that purpose. She didn't have to say so. She said she's a whole list of things she's engaged in within a BDSM context that are illegal. Seeing that it's perfectly possible that she has indeed engaged in illegal activities within a BDSM context, it's absolutely ridiculous for you to off the bat, without any further information, to claim that what she's saying is not true. If you thought it might be not true, you could have asked her to clarify and actually investigate whether or not her claim was true. But to -as an initial reaction to a perfect stranger- claim that it's not true that they have engaged in an act that's perfectly plausible for them to have engaged in is just an absurd response on your part. quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Why do you feel the need to tell strangers that YOU know better who they are and what they've done than they know themselves? Because the way people claim they are behaving is not how people work. Are you seriously suggesting that there are hordes of dominants out there risking prosecution just to get there rocks off? I'm sure there are some who are breaking the law, but to read some of the claims here (and other places), you'd think it's the norm. I guarantee you, it is not the norm. Most people do not want to take a chance on being prosecuted for (aggravated) sexual battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc. Considering how many people play without safewords, and how many scenes aren't perfectly negotiated prior to their start. And considering that for consent to be valid, it would have to be reestablished EVERY time prior to a dominant engaging acts that would be illegal if done without consent. Yeah, I'd say that dominants quite frequently risk being prosecuted for all kinds of things.

Awareness -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:30:10 PM)
Pfffft. You're playing semantic games for the benefit of your ego. You don't like the word 'permission' - fine, it's consent. Ultimately the sub implicitly consents to everything that happens. You do not have a mind-control scenario going on where your ego provides the ultimate definition of reality. You live in a society with laws, you do not have a slave and what you're doing is engaging in role play. If you're boasting about committing illegal acts - another indication of weakness on your part - then this merely means Clip has you over a barrel. At any time he can have you charged with assault. Considering he now holds this power over you and can exercise it at his whim, who's really holding the power in this scenario? You? Or perhaps he's merely topping from the bottom and you haven't noticed. One thing many so-called dominants seem to lack is an understanding of the difference between subjective and objective reality. Subjective reality might indicate you're flying - objective reality indicates you're about to hit the ground awfully fast.

LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness If you're boasting about committing illegal acts - another indication of weakness on your part - then this merely means Clip has you over a barrel. It's not weakness. It's honesty. Any top that doesn't realize there are potential legal ramifications is a fool. Do you think this is only an area of concern for male Dominants? Ha! The only place that I get a free pass is I don't actually get DNA evidence from a rape kit if someone has morning after remorse. The point of the thread wasn't about legal issues. You were close with your comment that I don't like the word "permission" and we don't use it. Maybe next time, you can stick to the original and discuss how things work in your dynamic.

petmonkey -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:27:06 AM)
points at NihilusZero's post, nods

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:54:40 AM)
quote: . What we do may not be illegal by the letter of the law in some states however that doesn't actually protect us when people don't believe us that things are consensual.So the law you are quoting means very little. It's neither legal nor illegal. It's a legal gray area. Very few, if anyone knows the laws - unless they have been specifically passed to deal with BDSM. Most importantly: the police don't know the law - of which there is almost none. All a sub (notice I didn't use the word slave, because slavery is illegal in the USA) has to do is claim non-consent and the Dom/Domme goes to jail. It may not stick, but it would definitely be a mood killer. In fact the sub can tell the cop that it was absolutely consentual and you SILL go to jail if the officer doesn't believe you. The D.A. probably doesn't know the law, nor the judge, nor the counsel for the defense. Pennsylvania is an open carry state. I can walk down the street with a handgun proudly strapped to my hip (except in Philadelphia) but I guaran-damned-tee you that I will be stopped and questioned by the police on no less than 3 times in the six blocks that it would take me to get to the bank. Because even the cops don't know that law even though it's written into the Constitution and the state supreme court has upheld it. That is something that is in the news and often talked about. BDSM is hidden and secretive and most people think it's shameful. Cops have heard about handguns, but how many have ever heard of a safe word? All the law that there is is based on precedent, and that only reflects one judge's opinion. So WIITWD may or may not be legal. Your best bet is to not get caught in the first place.

RCdc -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 1:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel So WIITWD may or may not be legal. Your best bet is to not get caught in the first place. Considering most people walk around life with this as a mantra, you would think that BDSM peeps would have gotten that by now.[:D] (Your post was pretty cool btw).[:)]

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 1:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Considering most people walk around life with this as a mantra, you would think that BDSM peeps would have gotten that by now.[:D] (Your post was pretty cool btw).[:)] Thanks. I just tried to draw a parallel to something that is (comparatively) straightforward. I notice that the two of you are from the UK, so I don't know how much you know about the Constitution; it's the highest law in our land - and it's still argued about it even when the words are quite clear. How much more murky are things going to be when no one wants to be quoted on knowing that the issue even exists; let alone that it is full of internal contradictions. "I Only feel free when in bondage." What the heck does that mean?! "The slave has the final word about what is allowed to be...what the frell?" Anyone ending up here has spent years trying to understand their own drives and you expect public servants to have a clue? Sorry. <Kryten>Rant mode canceled</Kryten> I want to be clear on something: I didn't mean to say that you have to hide who you are; I am saying that advertising it is just asking for trouble. Edited to add this To go back to my example: End Edit Ironically, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon BUT you are under heavier penalty if you pull that pistol out at the wrong time than if you didn't have the permit but pulled a gun. The law makes as much sense as believing in freedom but wanting to own a slave.

ranja -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 2:24:31 AM)
anyway, as for: Thanks for the permission i would say: You're welcome, it was my pleasure

RCdc -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 2:35:54 AM)
The Constitution? We probably know enough to get by.[;)] But honestly, I think it's like any set of laws... it just 'depends'. Black and white is a pretty unworkable idea. quote: Ironically, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon BUT you are under heavier penalty if you pull that pistol out at the wrong time than if you didn't have the permit but pulled a gun. The law makes as much sense as believing in freedom but wanting to own a slave. And I do love irony. The 'funny' thing is that you usually get two distinct sides... the ones that automatically think that what they do is illegal and do it anyway... and they are the ones that usually suggest that they are RACK and the ones that are big on consent, believing it to be a core and that BDSM relationships cannot function sanely without it, and usually say they are SSC. Reality is that neither help 'forward' BDSM practices nor make it more accessible or acceptable, no matter how forward thinking and progressive people think they are. In the beginning, I was SSC... then we were Rack... now we are neither.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875