RE: Thanks for the permission

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Thanks for the permission

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Thanks for the permission

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 8:15:30 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 1/30/2011 8:17:38 PM >

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 61

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 8:25:29 PM

Chulain

Posts: 283
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Ishtarr)

Post #: 62

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 8:40:01 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

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...

< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 1/30/2011 8:42:30 PM >

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 63

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 8:49:50 PM

Chulain

Posts: 283
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Ishtarr)

Post #: 64

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 8:58:07 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 65

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:06:07 PM

Chulain

Posts: 283
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Ishtarr)

Post #: 66

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:10:02 PM

NocturnalStalker

Posts: 3858
Joined: 12/4/2010
Status: offline

Can't you see you're both in love?

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 67

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:13:09 PM

Chulain

Posts: 283
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Chulain -- 1/30/2011 9:18:23 PM >

(in reply to NocturnalStalker)

Post #: 68

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:20:39 PM

NocturnalStalker

Posts: 3858
Joined: 12/4/2010
Status: offline

Eachother.

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 69

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:35:23 PM

Chulain

Posts: 283
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker
You crossed me.

Everyone needs a hobby.

(in reply to NocturnalStalker)

Post #: 70

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 9:50:24 PM

AquaticSub

Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 1/30/2011 9:51:06 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 71

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 10:18:46 PM

Ishtarr

Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to Chulain)

Post #: 72

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 10:30:10 PM

Awareness

Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 73

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/30/2011 10:45:23 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to Awareness)

Post #: 74

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 12:27:06 AM

petmonkey

Posts: 1053
Joined: 7/7/2009
Status: offline

*points at NihilusZero's post, nods*

_____________________________

Be excellent to each other.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 75

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 12:54:40 AM

MalcolmNathaniel

Posts: 1394
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to petmonkey)

Post #: 76

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 1:22:07 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

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.

(Your post was pretty cool btw).

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to MalcolmNathaniel)

Post #: 77

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 1:56:40 AM

MalcolmNathaniel

Posts: 1394
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline

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.
(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.

< Message edited by MalcolmNathaniel -- 1/31/2011 1:58:41 AM >

(in reply to RCdc)

Post #: 78

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 2:24:31 AM

ranja

Posts: 2111
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline

anyway, as for: Thanks for the permission
i would say: You're welcome, it was my pleasure

(in reply to MalcolmNathaniel)

Post #: 79

RE: Thanks for the permission - 1/31/2011 2:35:54 AM

RCdc

Posts: 8674
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to MalcolmNathaniel)

Post #: 80

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Thanks for the permission

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

Jump to:

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

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109