quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

~fast reply~
As I've often written, I don't get what "consent" has to do with "domination". That being said, my concept of "domination" isn't the norm here and my "dynamic" started on the foundation of 10+ years of relationship. I think my viewpoint is skewed for those reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

~fast reply~
As I've often written, I don't get what "consent" has to do with "domination". That being said, my concept of "domination" isn't the norm here and my "dynamic" started on the foundation of 10+ years of relationship. I think my viewpoint is skewed for those reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

~fast reply~
As I've often written, I don't get what "consent" has to do with "domination". That being said, my concept of "domination" isn't the norm here and my "dynamic" started on the foundation of 10+ years of relationship. I think my viewpoint is skewed for those reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist
LOL, well, from an outside POV...your whole relationship is just one form of consent after another. Just depends on how you look at it, and how open minded you can be.

quote:

I'll be honest. I did not read your whole post kalikshama...it was just too dayum long. You lost me as soon as you linked to the other thread My response is based on the answers that others posted...so hopefully, I understand the gist of what you were trying to say.

Most of us here, have agreed, at one time or another, that the word 'consent' has so many different definitions that it could probably surpass your notion of 'a zillion'. Someone posted that for them, what would constitute consent within their personal relationship, would not mean the same in a public setting with someone outside of their SO. It was also mentioned that all too often, there is a lack of CLEAR communication when discussing 'consent' in a public area. A good example of this would be a submissive/bottom who IS a masochist looking at a whip and saying 'I don't want to be whipped', but not going into detail of WHY they don't want to be whipped. It leaves most with an idea that 'ok, they want to be persuaded'...in other words, pushed beyond their limits.

This person, the submissive or bottom that is, should instead be saying 'I will not allow a whip to be used on me for any reason, this is non-negotiable'. Instead of leaving it up in the air, it draws a very clear line of where they are willing to NOT go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: frazzle

Ive always found that "do that again and i'll kill you" works wonders for consent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

However, I don't think anyone should be doing public play without a safeword or the equivalent in place (i.e., if you are playing, even as a couple, with others who are relatively new to you) regardless of what the underlying dynamic of your personal relationship is. In other words, you can have a D/s or M/s relationship with no safeword, but if you opt to play with others in a public setting, I don't think it's safe to not have a safeword in place, or a very clear understanding between all parties that "no" means no. This also means the submissive must use the safeword or "no" and not use ambiguous statements when they are really trying to say "no". And I feel this discussion needs to take place independent of whatever the rules of the house are. I think it up to whoever is playing to clarify the rules with the people playing up front, and not rely on an assumed understanding of the house rules, because people might be interpreting the house rules differently. I don't do a lot of public play anymore, but when I did, having certain things discussed up front was quite necessary even if my Dominant was present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

However, I don't think anyone should be doing public play without a safeword or the equivalent in place (i.e., if you are playing, even as a couple, with others who are relatively new to you) regardless of what the underlying dynamic of your personal relationship is. In other words, you can have a D/s or M/s relationship with no safeword, but if you opt to play with others in a public setting, I don't think it's safe to not have a safeword in place, or a very clear understanding between all parties that "no" means no. This also means the submissive must use the safeword or "no" and not use ambiguous statements when they are really trying to say "no". And I feel this discussion needs to take place independent of whatever the rules of the house are. I think it up to whoever is playing to clarify the rules with the people playing up front, and not rely on an assumed understanding of the house rules, because people might be interpreting the house rules differently. I don't do a lot of public play anymore, but when I did, having certain things discussed up front was quite necessary even if my Dominant was present.

Yeah.... Well, I feel like at very least, if you're playing with somebody and you haven't sat down and had a clear conversation about safewords, limits etc, then the top should err on the side of caution and assume that not only does "no" mean no, but "I don't want that" means no, and "I don't like that" means no, and anything else that might possibly at all indicate a withdrawal of consent means no. It's not exciting, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Great thread on fet regarding consent. I'd like to continue the convo here cuz y'all are my peeps and I hate that white text on fet.

Note "Sexy Bottom" posts later in the thread and not surprisingly has a different version than the narrator.

https://fetlife.com/users/81291/posts/991260

We like to know who the villain is. Life seems so much more clear when we have a clear enemy to fight against. (Pardon me while I be a little US-centric here.) In WWII it was Hitler. (Have I automatically Godwin-ed myself already?) After that it was the USSR and all things communist. Then it got a bit murky a bit till we got Osama Bin Laden.

We like clear enemies. Good vs Evil. Superman vs Lex Luthor. Harry vs Voldemort. Kantiss vs The Capitol. We want our bad guys pure, unambiguous, and absolutely getting what they deserve. We live for this shit. We party in the streets for what we see as justice.

So, what does this have to do with kink?

Welcome to the Consent Culture Showdown.

In one corner you have those crusading for victims' rights, trying to give a voice to the oppressed. Those who know the oft quoted statistics of 1 in 4 women being sexually assaulted in their life time. That such crimes are under reported, especially amongst the LGBTQ community. That reporting them often does no damn good anyway.

In the other corner you have those who are championing the falsely accused. Those who have dealt with the unmedicated and/or spiteful seeking revenge and have labeled them “batshit” and “drama queens" to regain their footing in a situation spiraling out of control. Those who thought they were doing everything right and STILL had accusations hurled at them. Many who, rather than have a conversation thought the best tactic was to fire back any way they could.

And somewhere in the middle you have people like me.

People who believe neither side is wrong, that both have merit, and both, when taken to extremes are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to this community.

Or so is my opinion. For whatever that is worth. (About as much as the paper this is written on.)

See, here's the thing, both sides want their villains evil and see themselves to be on the side of righteous goodness.

BUT THE WORLD DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

There are no white hats and black hats. There is a lot of freaking grey. Way more than 50 shades.

Understand, as I sit reading all the arguments, debates, and righteous indignation begetting personal filters over-riding reading comprehension skills, all I can do is think of something I witnessed last year that would forever change my view on this whole issues.

It was a kinky camp event on the East Coast. The last day, we were all happy and tired, and getting our last bit of fun in. There was a group outside a cabin paying some lovely attention to the bottom of, well, let's call this person 'Sexy Bottom.'

Along comes a person, we'll call them 'Big Top.' These two know each other. Now here is where memory gets unclear (and this in and of itself is important) so the exact details are lost but basically 'Big Top' mentions an implement to join in the fun. 'Sexy Bottom' mentions the last time they played with 'Big Top' and them having bruises that lasted way too long for their liking. 'Big Top' says something. 'Sexy Bottom' says something. The exchange comes off as banter for those witnessing it.

Or, at least it did to me. At the moment.

Back comes 'Big Top' with said implement. The person – who to me seemed like they were running the show, but I could have been wrong – gives the 'by all means' go ahead to 'Big Top.' And 'Big Top' takes a swat.

'Sexy Bottom' springs off the railing from which they were bent over exclaiming, “What the SHIT!?!” and starts looking at all of us like we shot their dog.

You could hear Midori's 'Crickets of Undo' as we all tried to puzzle out what the hell just happened.

'Sexy Bottom's' eyes land on me and the lightbulb goes off.
“No 'Big Top'...” I say.
“No 'Big Top.,” They say.

There's a collective “Aaaa...OOOOhhhhhhh...” as it all dawns on everyone , and the light bulbs come on as to just where it went sideways. That the banter wasn't banter. It was saying “No.”

Apologies were made. Things seemed better after that. Only they can say for sure.

I, being the communication geek that I am, was left shaken by the whole incident. I kept thinking over and over to myself:

How do THAT many people miss someone saying “No?”
Then:

Oh gods, if that many people can miss it, what the fuck happens when it is only two people?
How bad is it when it is just two people high on endorphins and adrenalin and dopamine...
Or more?
That incident drove home something I had always known, but never really understood until that moment:

It is completely possible for two people (or more) to have two (or more) different stories and all be telling the absolute truth as they know it.

This is important to this whole issue. It is SO easy to get caught up in “They are lying!” to make one's attacker or accuser into that clear cut enemy. Does it matter if they are “lying” or if they have experienced the event different than you did?

What is more important is not their “lies” but your truth. You experienced something. You felt something. You heard things and interpreted them to mean something.

If a person is experiencing an event different than you did, somewhere in the middle is the Truth.

So, rather than brand someone with an epitaph (predator, drama queen, etc), wouldn't it be better to face the person and find out their truth? They may be repentant. They may be clueless. You don't want to be burdened with educating them, ok, then you don't have to burden yourself with the shit talk either.

To Clarify my definition: Talking to friends offering their shoulder about what happened to you in terms of your own experience = Not Shit talk.
Warning people to stay away from someone and /or going off on public internet rants about specific people dragging them into it = Shit talk.
See, because what drives ME nuts, personally, is the assumption of, “Oh, they KNOW what they did.”

Did you read the above example? See a whole bunch of people not knowing?

HUMANS ARE NOT MINDREADERS. Please, stop assuming because someone was in the same room with you they know your thoughts. I know we like to play at being all knowing, especially those into anticipatory service and those Domly doms who can read you so well, but really – still human.

To be clear, YES, I believe there are some truly evil fucked up people out there. Ones who seek power via violence and assault. People who try to make themselves feel greater by making others small and powerless. I believe they can be Dom, Sub, Switch, Male, Female, Transgender, Queer... does not matter. I am not discussing these cases. At all. So please, before you start in with the hate comments about how I am “invalidating your experience,” step away from the computer.

HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that everyone who has stumbled across a boundary, or fucked up on an issue of consent, is an irredeemable abuser who must be outed to all as a Predator to be warned away from.

Because if that's the case then I challenge everyone who has been in the scene to NEVER do this at some point in time. To never step on someone's toes. To never misread a signal. To never get caught up in a moment. To ALWAYS catch the hints. You all have the potential to be a “Predator” or “Prey.”

I've said it many times before. I'll say it again.

We play with emotional dynamite in this scene.

(A quote that I have shamelessly stolen from @Pyrategrrl and used for years.)

Not one of us are experts on how to diffuse this bomb.

That Memo was a tool – a pretty incomplete one at that, and only one of many out there – for how avoid setting it off, or barring that, how to avoid so many casualties if it does go off.

Take it. Leave it. It's your choice.

It's ALL your choice.

YOU are the one responsible for you. I like negotiations because I don't trust that people are going to volunteer what I need to know. I'm being responsible... for me. When two people come together in a scene, they, I hope, trust that they are both responsible for what they create together (thank you @RoughMercies for that phrasing). But understand if one person does not uphold that trust, FROM EITHER END, no one is going to rescue you. Not from them. And not from yourself.

For just as there are no clear cut villains – there are NO heroes in this scene either.

There's just humans.