Concent?!?!

Concent?!?! (Full Version)

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

Message

slaverosebeauty -> Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 11:35:17 AM)
The poll on 'play rape' got me thinking {no this is NOT on play rape}, but on concent. When I play with someone sex is always invovled, it just works out that way, so if/when we go to bed together, my concent is already given that the person I am with can 'take' me whenever he wants without objection. If it's 2am and he wants sex, I won't and cannot trully deny him, since we share the same bed and I am 'His' {even if only for the night or weekend or whatever}, I am his to 'take' when and as he wishes, desires and craves; without me having to give concent to each time or act. My questions: *Do you ask or negotiate or talk about 'concent' before you play/meet someone if sex is going to be invovled or possibly invovled? or *Its just implied or an unspoken rule? Its a 'given' that concent is there since you are playing with that person? or Is is a mixture of both?? What about concent when sex is NOT involved. Do you negoiate 'concent' before you play or just 'go with the flow' and see how things work?*

BitaTruble -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 11:39:33 AM)
Consent and the personal limits of a bottom are always negotiated prior to play in my world. I don't want to get it into my head that I can use someone as a pin cushion if it's a hard limit for them, so I find out up front what they are OK with and, more importantly, what they are not OK with in terms of S/m. I don't have D/s relationships outside my primary and we are sexually monogamous, so no sex will be involved... just pain and power play. Celeste

juliaoceania -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 11:46:51 AM)
In my interactions consent for every new activity is required by HIM when we do things, once that consent is given then it does not have to be given every single time... Otherwise it is not D/s... Like your example of being "available" for sex whenever your dominant may want it. Now this approach is different for every couple... some have intense negotiations and contracts where every little thing is considered beforehand and agreed to. Others have verbal ongoing negotiations before they are collared so they have a good idea of where their partner's limits are. Doms have limits too, just as sub/slaves do. Personally for me, I do not engage in play unless I plan on playing with that person repeatedly and it is moving toward something long term. I try to see if we are on the same page, so does he, and then we consent to what play will take place. When new play is added, then new consent is given. This establishes the parameters in my situation right now. It was not this way with my former dom, who did not want me to have many limits, and was constantly trying to push my soft ones. Every dynamic is different I think. I am interested to see if doms feel if every negotiation with every sub is different also...

meatcleaver -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 11:57:56 AM)
I see mine only several months of the year or that is how it is working out at present because of each of our circumstances so when we meet we are both just a little sex hungry even though we agreed to have an open relationship while we are not together. Its really working out we are just not indulging when we are apart although I do play occasionally with an old friend. (too complicated and boring to explain fully) We have never discussed consent per se as in, this is a discussion about consent and boundaries but obviosly in conversations we have quite often discussed limits. Y doesn't like consent in so far that within limits she prefers to be kept psychologically wrong footed and her boundaries pushed. Its a more a feel as we go thing and she trusts that if she ever says NOOOOOO! as in I REALY MEAN NOOOO! I will stop. It works for us and since like most people I assume, conversations and discussions are on going, setting limits to consent in advance seems irrelevent. Another woman might need to know precisely what she is consenting to before she gives it. Horses for courses I guess.

spankmepink11 -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 12:12:02 PM)
"Implied consent" can be very dangerous ground to tread, and in my mind....nothing is a "given". . I think consent needs to be covered in great detail before any type of play is entered into. If one is interacting with a casual Partner, i would imagine consent would have to be negotiated before each "session" (for lack of a better term). Whereas in the case of a long term D/s relationship, consentual acts are defined , agreed upon, and adhered to, and in my experience, it's usually an ongoing process..

Proprietrix -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 12:19:32 PM)
When I was bottoming, I very much detested any top who assumed sexuality was a given. I once bottomed to someone, having negotiated bondage and impact play. Once tied up and gagged, the Top decided he was going to remove my panties and use clothespins on my genitals. Clothespins had been discussed. Removal of my panties had NOT been consented to and in fact I had said "I keep my underwear on at all times". It felt intrusive and rape-like to have someone verging on parts of me I had not consented to, and here I was bound and gagged, unable to protest. Luckily a friend/play partner of mine, familiar with my play style at that time, was present and he interupted the scene and said "She has a rule about not removing her underwear during play. Are you sure she negotiated this with you?" The top tried to squirm out of it by saying he wasn't "removing" the panties, just pulling them out of the way. My friend came around to my face and told me to nod if I was ok with it and shake my head if I wasn't. I shook my head and he started untying me. The top was pissed and ranting around about how I "chickened out" and "changed my mind" and yadda yadda. When I think back on that, I'm really glad I had a policy about playing with a new partner for the first time in a group setting only. I don't know how far that top would have taken it if we had been alone. What was my point? Oh... No, I don't assume consent unless it's explicitly given or unless that person wears my collar.

juliaoceania -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 12:24:15 PM)
There is always safe words...smiles

CreativeDominant -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 12:34:36 PM)
I very much agree with the idea of "consent for specific acts" being given. There have been posts on here on other threads from dominants and submissives stating that once submission is given, consent is not required. I disagree. You may agree to A, B, C, and D but not to E. (as celeste noted). This can hold true for sexual acts as well as BDSM acts. You may be involved in casual play, agreeing to submit to certain BDSM acts and certain sexual acts but that does not mean that because you are submitting, that it is full submission yet. This may be a play partner for a weekend of negotiated submission, it may be a partner with whom you have been involved for one or two or three months (or more) but to whom you are not collared or are not fully submissive to yet and you choose to withhold certain BDSM and/or sex acts from someone that you are not fully involved with. You have that right.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 12:36:52 PM)
I have played at a higher level {I guess you would call it} where, I was trully being 'a slave' to my partner. We had discussed limits and safe words and they were in place so things were out in the open, but consentuality of being 'take' during the night or any other time was a 'given.' By allowing myself to be with this Man in this situation, I had already given concent. Does this make sence to anyone else?? juliaocenana got my point about it being a 'given' after limits and safe words are defined and negoiated. {looks around for fastlane and others who know what I am talking about and those with whom we have discussed this very issue} If NO sex or removal of panties for instance is part of what was talked about before hand or negotiatied then then NO sexual concent was given. If it was not brought up, then is concent a 'given' just by the M/s D/s dynamic alone? or does it have to be discussed? or does the slave or submissive just have to use their safeword to indicate 'no concent'? I am really interested in seeing what Tops think about this and where they weigh in.

Bearlee -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 1:01:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty ...When I play with someone sex is always invovled, it just works out that way, so if/when we go to bed together, my concent is already given that the person I am with can 'take' me whenever he wants without objection. If it's 2am and he wants sex, I won't and cannot trully deny him, since we share the same bed and I am 'His' {even if only for the night or weekend or whatever}, I am his to 'take' when and as he wishes, desires and craves; without me having to give concent to each time or act. My questions: *Do you ask or negotiate or talk about 'concent' before you play/meet someone if sex is going to be invovled or possibly invovled? or *Its just implied or an unspoken rule? Its a 'given' that concent is there since you are playing with that person? or Is is a mixture of both?? What about concent when sex is NOT involved. Do you negoiate 'concent' before you play or just 'go with the flow' and see how things work?* Hmmmm... Not only do I negoiate concent before I play...I also negoiate that my play partner honors safewords. Not that I'd ever use one...but I would only want to play with somebody who wouldn't take it as a 'challenge' if I did! As far as the sex part; sex is not always part of my play. But I would say...IF I were playing and had planned to also sleep with the Dom, I'd agree with you; to me it would be a scene that lasted all night...and so yes, concent would be implied. Course, I'm so 'old school' ...I wouldn't BE in the guy's bedroom (or motel) unless I'd already decided I wanted to include sex with him! LOL

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 1:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty Do you ask or negotiate or talk about 'concent' before you play/meet someone if sex is going to be invovled or possibly invovled? Yup, I treat sex like any other activity. Just because I say it's ok to fuck me anally, doesn't mean it's ok to cut my skin intentionally. If sex has a possibility of being involved, it gets discussed. quote:* *Its just implied or an unspoken rule? Its a 'given' that concent is there since you are playing with that person? Nope. I NEVER assume anything is implied unless we've played before and have already gone over it.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 1:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty I have played at a higher level {I guess you would call it} where, I was trully being 'a slave' to my partner. We had discussed limits and safe words and they were in place so things were out in the open, but consentuality of being 'take' during the night or any other time was a 'given.' By allowing myself to be with this Man in this situation, I had already given concent. Does this make sence to anyone else?? Yes, it's usually called "non consensual consent play" or "overall consent." Either way, you've discussed it and agreed to the rules of the game, even if you haven't consent to that specific act itself. It doesn't matter what rules you're playing by, or what activities you want- as long as everyone is clearly on the same page.

thetammyjo -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 1:42:45 PM)
I will not play with anyone now without believing that he/she and I have both given our informed consent. I'm an adult now who has the education and the information about BDSM -- I know what negotiation is and I can use it, I'm not a teenager who didn't know this stuff and just went with the flow. In my opinion and for me the "flow" offers more risks of harm and damage than taking the time to negotiate.

thetammyjo -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 1:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty I have played at a higher level {I guess you would call it} where, I was trully being 'a slave' to my partner. We had discussed limits and safe words and they were in place so things were out in the open, but consentuality of being 'take' during the night or any other time was a 'given.' By allowing myself to be with this Man in this situation, I had already given concent. Does this make sence to anyone else?? Yes, it's usually called "non consensual consent play" or "overall consent." Either way, you've discussed it and agreed to the rules of the game, even if you haven't consent to that specific act itself. It doesn't matter what rules you're playing by, or what activities you want- as long as everyone is clearly on the same page. Yeah, Fox and I have overall consent -- once he accepted my collar and the position as my slave he consented to obey me and serve me until he decides to leave. That is the option with us -- leave or be my slave.

CrappyDom -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 4:17:49 PM)
It depends on who I am with, I have a partner (more experienced than I) who I never bother discussing consent with and others whom I do. Depends on the dynamic. If I was to play with someone I met at a party, I would negotiate some but not much, they either want to play with me or not and I would make that clear up front. I would include permission to penetrate their orifices with toys and fingers in with agreeing to play with me. If I desired sexual favors, that I would discuss seperately. However, I don't recommend this tack in general and it of course has its risks.

LadiesBladewing -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 4:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty *Do you ask or negotiate or talk about 'concent' before you play/meet someone if sex is going to be invovled or possibly invovled? Even though sex -isn't- involved in the type of service-oriented stuff that we do, we still negotiate everything up front. If it isn't discussed, it isn't done. I'm not comfortable any other way. We -do- have a sort of "overall" consent... but it doesn't come into play with any of our new or trainee servants -- only with servants who are preparing to become members of our household as family (see discussion on sharing). For them, when they become family, they agree to serve the remainder of the family on -any- terms required of them at -any- time, without question... but these people have typically been with us and served in our house and have come to know us intimately for years (at least 3, and often 5 or more). quote: *Its just implied or an unspoken rule? Its a 'given' that concent is there since you are playing with that person? "Implied" consent feels an awful lot like the whole issue around the concept of "assume"... eventually, if things aren't discussed, some situation is going to make an ass- of- u -and- me. quote: What about concent when sex is NOT involved. Do you negoiate 'concent' before you play or just 'go with the flow' and see how things work? See notes above. As a contrast to the more typical service relationships that do have sex as at least a somewhat regular part of the relationship, because sex is such a rare part of what we do, we treat the potential for sex play as a specially negotiated process, separate from the usual service consent. On the rare occasions that it comes up, a special time for thoroughly discussing the possibilities and obtaining consent happens before the first glass of wine gets poured, the first candle gets lit, the first elegant aperatif is laid on the table, and the first item of clothing beyond the outside coat is removed. Lady Zephyr

perverseangelic -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 4:49:21 PM)
I believe that informed consent must always be given. Once one has obtained informed consent, then implied consent is ok with me. That is, say one is playing with a d-type for the weekend. One negotates what will and will not be done, and gives a blanked "ok" to vaginal sex. As the weekend progresses, I would say that explicite consent has been given for the sex act in advance, and it doesn't have to be obtained every time sex happens. In the OP's example, 2 am sex w/out any discussion would be totally ok, because informed consent has already been given. When my Owner and I play with others, it's pretty much up to him to decide who gets to do what with me. We talk about it, usually, becuase he likes to hear my input, but it boils down to what I meantioned before, namely that I've already given him my consent to make these decitions, so he has no need to obtain my consent before play with others.We usually do some kind of sit-down and talk about what's ok and what's not with new partners, though, because it saves a whole lot of heartache later.

twicehappy -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 5:52:26 PM)
I am a collared 24/7 slave so my consent was given once, when i accepted the collar. Granted there were the usual precollar negotiations including those about sex. I am available to them both whenever they wish. Of course we talk about things but that is a courtesy only.

Sinergy -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/22/2006 6:06:21 PM)
Hello A/all, I tend to dislike long and involved discussions of who does what to whom in negotiations. While I will talk about them, I tend to prefer to find out how she feels about everything in life. What I generally do is give her a safe word to use. Things like knife play and the like I wont introduce without discussing beforehand, because a bottom under the influence of endorphins is not really in a great position to make good judgement calls about her own safety. So I might mention that I just bought a wurtenberg wheel and would like to use it. If she doesnt object, then "game on!" This same sort of thing applies to the whole sex thing. She has a way to tell me to stop what I am doing... Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

CreativeDominant -> RE: Concent?!?! (5/23/2006 7:17:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty I have played at a higher level {I guess you would call it} where, I was trully being 'a slave' to my partner. We had discussed limits and safe words and they were in place so things were out in the open, but consentuality of being 'take' during the night or any other time was a 'given.' By allowing myself to be with this Man in this situation, I had already given concent. Does this make sence to anyone else?? It does to me. You and he were going to play at a higher level and after discussion of safewords and limits and what could and could not take place under the banner of "being his slave" for the evening (weekend) before anything took place. Both knew the 'landscape' before the expedition began. juliaocenana got my point about it being a 'given' after limits and safe words are defined and negoiated. {looks around for fastlane and others who know what I am talking about and those with whom we have discussed this very issue} If NO sex or removal of panties for instance is part of what was talked about before hand or negotiatied then then NO sexual concent was given. If it was not brought up, then is concent a 'given' just by the M/s D/s dynamic alone? IMHOO, no. The M/s D/s dynamic is just that...dynamic. There is no 'set in stone' rules that must be followed. Consent not given for an act not discussed does not mean that it is implied. One of the things that bothers me about the idea expressed on another thread that "once she has agreed to submit, all of her is mine" and its counterpart "I don't submit without submitting fully...that means all of me is his" is that it implies anything less is not really dominance or submission. [8\|]Bullshit.[8\|] There is such a thing as casual play and "levels of dominance/submission" and they exist for the purposes described by the OP herein or for those who wish to begin playing with each other in the course of a budding relationship but who are not yet fully committed to each other. quote: or does it have to be discussed? Yes, it does in my world. quote: or does the slave or submissive just have to use their safeword to indicate 'no concent'? This might work for some but there is another thread on the forum where a submissive did NOT use her safeword and it resulted in a messy situation...and that was public play. In the midst of a hot and heavy, endorphin-soaked, sub/Dom space/ billy-goat horny situation is probably not the best time to try to remember to say "No, you can't touch me there". The submissive might remember but she may also be so far gone that everything is O.K.....until the next day. The dominant might be a gentleman and might think to himself "We never discussed this" or he might think to himself "she's not saying no...she must be O.K. with it" and find himself wrong the next day. Isn't it better to know beforehand? In my world, yeah it is. quote: I am really interested in seeing what Tops think about this and where they weigh in. You have mine now.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875