quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

I do understand that you are only referring to people you have come into contact with. I fail to find a connection between the two though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

The only reason I feel the need to make this comment is that I have spoken and corresponded with people who have felt otherwise. That consent to be in such a relationship meant the submissive could NEVER leave of their own accord and that only the Dominant had the right to end the relationship.

quote:


I don't know how others on this thread feel, but I'm pretty sure actually slavery was outlawed in this country.

quote:


So, although I am not searching for the type of relationship that is being discussed here, I think two people are allowed to create whatever situation works for themselves - provided that the ultimate consent to be in or out of the relationship is always in each person's control. I know many of you reading my comment will think, "well, of course, duh", but truly I have met people who felt otherwise - and I find that a scary perspective for people to have.

quote:

When a submissive agrees to a relationship of consensual non-consent, are they also agreeing to never leave the relationship unless released by the Dominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

But I do find the concept of "internal enslavement" of interest and would appreciate more of your thoughts on that. Do you mean that if someone cannot force themselves to the realization that they have to leave that this is necessarily a good, or a bad thing? Or is it situational, i.e., depends on the specific people involved, and the specifics of the situation? (I am sincerely trying to understand this.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

[
Okay, let me approach it differently. When a submissive agrees to a relationship of consensual non-consent, are they also agreeing to never leave the relationship unless released by the Dominant? I understand that they are relinquishing control within the relationship from that moment on, but are they also agreeing to never leave voluntarily? i.e., the decision to leave would be a decision that they have already consented not to make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I would think that the consent that is given up front cannot rightly be called consent unless it is also knowing consent to the Dominant's perspective on how the relationship can be terminated.

quote:

I would hope, given this range of opinion on whether a submissive can unilaterally leave, whether psychologically or physically, that this would be discussed up front.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Thank you OriontheWolf and IrishMist for clarifying for me. I see that for those of you who are involved in CNC that there is a range of opinion on the concept of "removal of the option to leave". I guess, at the end of the day, as with everything in BDSM, it is important to understand what exactly one is agreeing to. I would hope, given this range of opinion on whether a submissive can unilaterally leave, whether psychologically or physically, that this would be discussed up front. I would think that the consent that is given up front cannot rightly be called consent unless it is also knowing consent to the Dominant's perspective on how the relationship can be terminated. Clearly if the submissive thinks it is "the Dominant's way or the highway", but the Dominant has assumed, "it is my way, there is no highway", this is something that needs to be discussed up front and not after the fact of consent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21

quote:

I would hope, given this range of opinion on whether a submissive can unilaterally leave, whether psychologically or physically, that this would be discussed up front.

I, personally, don't have a problem with CNC, if both parties involved agree to the arrangement and the dominant is sane (i.e. won't take advantage of his position to cause any series damage). But I have my doubts that you can actually take away a person's "right to leave." Cause, you know, you can't. You can "pretend" to do so, to spice the dynamic up. Or, hell, you can even be serious about it, no pretending. But the plain fact is that if she goes to police, complaining that her dominant raped her and wouldn't let her leave after she wanted out, the police aren't going to buy it when he argues that. "It was consensual non-consent, and we agreed at the beginning of the relationship that she had no right to leave, and that I could restrain her if she tried."

quote:

No one disputes that, but what if someone's will was subjegated so much they could not go to the police, walk out the door, or anything else? If this is known as the goal before the techniques and training are applied, that is where the consent comes in. It is not a suspension of disbelief, or fantasy, it is the conditioning of a human being to have a desired result on an emotional and psychological level.

I know of many that do some odd things for love, so why is it difficult to understand that two individuals may go into something with more knowledge and understanding, to gain a desired result?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21
But I have my doubts that you can actually take away a person's "right to leave." Cause, you know, you can't. You can "pretend" to do so, to spice the dynamic up. Or, hell, you can even be serious about it, no pretending. But the plain fact is that if she goes to police, complaining that her dominant raped her and wouldn't let her leave after she wanted out, the police aren't going to buy it when he argues that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisPet21
But the plain fact is that if she goes to police, complaining that her dominant raped her and wouldn't let her leave after she wanted out, the police aren't going to buy it when he argues that. "It was consensual non-consent, and we agreed at the beginning of the relationship that she had no right to leave, and that I could restrain her if she tried."

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
It seems to me that a truly unhappy submissive in a CNC relationship could cause a tremendous amount of damage to the Dominant if they chose to.

quote:


I would think that any smart, capable Dominant would always be mindful of this, and mindful of when a relationship is actually over - to avoid this prosecution risk. (Of course this begs the question of what constitutes a smart, capable Dominant.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

No one disputes that, but what if someone's will was subjegated so much they could not go to the police, walk out the door, or anything else? If this is known as the goal before the techniques and training are applied, that is where the consent comes in. It is not a suspension of disbelief, or fantasy, it is the conditioning of a human being to have a desired result on an emotional and psychological level.

I know of many that do some odd things for love, so why is it difficult to understand that two individuals may go into something with more knowledge and understanding, to gain a desired result?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Bear with me here. I think everyone agrees that as long as a relationship is properly functioning, without true abuse as we would normally define the term, that both parties can have agreed to whatever ahead of time, and everything is fine.

quote:


The issue is really, what happens when things start going bad? Either the Dominant is becoming abusive. Or the Dominant or submissive is simply no longer happy in the arrangement. Or one or the other has fallen out of lust/love/or whatever state of emotion the two were in when they made their agreement. If a submissive has agreed to go to the point of no return, and is psychologically in that space of being unable/unwilling to leave despite being in a relationship that is either wrong, or just over, doesn't this leave BOTH the Dominant and the submissive in a place they really don't want to be.

quote:


How does a Dominant fairly release someone who does NOT want to be released because they are conditioned to want to stay in the relationship. This seems to open up a situation where the submissive will find a way to get back at the Dominant.

quote:


And what of the relationship that might have turned abusive? Even you, as someone into CNC, if you knew of someone in an abusive relationship, whether vanilla, M/s, CNC or whatever, would you not feel compelled to help that person get out of that situation - i.e., help them "decondition" themselves? Certainly consent to not leave is not the same as consent to abuse.

quote:


(Please read the word "abuse" in the above as what we would all agree is abusive - not typical BDSM play. If you feel there is no common defn of the term "abuse" then use whatever your own definition of abuse/abusive would mean).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

quote:

ORIGINAL: amaidiamond

quote:

I was going to ask amaidiamond a question along the lines of "what would happen to your consent if he no longer shared your morals, values, desires?" but that doesn't really hit the point.

It is a very valid point. And in all honesty I don't think for me there is a black and white answer.
If he no longer shared my morals, values, desires, well that would imply some major change in him or in me so I think a lot would depend on what those changes are.

My main and primary desire is to serve, to be the best I can be and that is how I find my inner peace, even if i don't always want to serve. On a moral scale, him and I are not identical, far from it though major moral issues we seem to share. In some cases whilst he doesn't share my morals he indulges me for the benefit of my mental health (I have not eaten a battery or barn egg in over 10 years) - no big difference to him if he does or not but for me a big difference.
Bigger moral issues? If it did get to the point that there was a clash that I could not accept/move past then in my mind it would mean I needed to think about if i wanted to be in the relationship (again can of worms, internal enslavement etc) - For example if he decided it was morally right to kidnap and rape someone, nothing on this earth could convince me that was the case.

As it stands, the man he is and woman I am, that is not an issue, the trust is absolute.

Hope that made some form of sense!

I can relate to some of that in that I'm a vegetarian, and my former was a pretty avid meat eater. He didn't plan to make me eat meat, but it also wasn't my business to tell him "you can't eat that," just because of my own morals. i'd cook it for him, or we'd cook together, but i just didn't eat it.

We weren't morally identical either, but on big things, we were really close, and the big things outweighed the small ones.
Would you consider it an issue if your M decided not to bother with humane eggs anymore? If he wanted you to eat conventionally farmed ones, would you? (Does he buy them, or just allow you to buy them?)

I suppose that might be a what-if, and as you said, you know yourselves and each other well enough to know it's not an issue. I'm just asking a hypothetical. =p

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

A topic I do not see discussed in these forums often, and one that seems to illicit very emotional responses, is consensual non-consent as a dynamic. While there are many kinks and fetishes that people do not like, this seems to be one that is not only disliked by a large majority, but is also insulted often. Because of this please let us try and be civil.

One of the first problems is defining what it is. Looking at various essays and websites (some of which I have written but will not shamelessly plug here), there may be some common elements, but the more many try to define it, the more variance there seems to be.

I would like to read what others believe CNC is, and opinions on it. I understand there are many that believe it is abuse, or goes against their ethics, which is fine. Not all of us will like the same things. I hope the discussion can be done in a way that does not cause the Mods any grief, but I also believe the more something is discussed and examined, the better it can be understood, and defined.

What is your definition of CNC?

What are your views on it?

If you believe it to be disliked by many, why do you believe this to be?