|
hopelesslyInvo -> RE: Consent violation? (7/15/2014 8:18:45 AM)
|
we're missing a lot of valuable information, but obviously it's a violation of consent unless consent is renegotiated on the fly, such as
are you ready to come out of that cage now?
yup!
too bad, i'm making you stay in another day (generic roleplay bluff). how do you feel about that?~
oh you're so evil.
and you like it.
you know it.
-
looking at it factually...
if the device could only be removed by a key, and the "bull" alone has access to the key, then yes it's the bull's choice as to whether the key gets turned. and if his decision is to refuse, then yes the "bull" broke consent.
if the device can only be removed by a key, but both partners in the couple have access to it then the choice belongs to both of them. so if neither comply then both have violated consent.
if it can only be removed by a key, and all 3 know where it is but the sub lacks the capacity to access or use it, then the choice to remove it still lies with the couple and their refusal to unlock him means they've broken the consent.
if it can only be removed by a key, yet all 3 know where it is, and nothing prevents any one of them from using it, then the couple has not broken consent. as long as the sub understands their ability to end it, he's non-verbally consented to continue wearing it for a further and indeterminate amount of time, allowing insincere words to be used to continue the fantasy. this sort of thing is almost as common as safe-words are.
if it can be removed by means other than the key, and the sub has no willingness to continue being held in it but the couple has refused to comply with its removal, (and if the sub was smart enough to have them pay for the overpriced thing) then both of the people in the couple have broken consent. yet since the key is not the only option though, the keyholders are not the only ones who still have the ability to make "choice". regardless of whether the sub does or does not take any particular action, nothing now prevents him from justifying the shifting of his thoughts to "every minute that goes by where i haven't decided to smash this damn thing to pieces is simply an extended courtesy".
-
the opinionated advice i would likely give if it really happened...
if the reason it was going to be removed on sunday was haphazard, then no biggy. being in it longer was a clear risk that he took when going in, but the stakes and consequences are fortunately not high; roll with it for one more day and appreciate the reality that "we don't always get our way, and it's not always necessarily a bad thing".
if it was supposed to be removed by sunday because there was an occasion that would require something along the lines of passing through a metal detector or dropping their pants to cough at the doctor, then either suffer possible embarrassment or cancel/reschedule to be spared of it. the risk was obvious, you consented and agreed to take that risk; life goes on, make sure you go with it.
if it was supposed to be removed because of a health reason (take your pick) then it's either a minor inconvenience again or potentially a huge deal. if it is in fact a moderate or huge deal then it's time to take appropriate action. if it comes down to breaking things, hurting people, or attracting some very unwelcome attention upon everyone involved to prevent something worse from happening- so be it.
-
more words...
i think you and your friend are both right. as soon as there's a lack of compliance with what was agreed upon, yes you can cry foul, but as soon as the sub allowed himself to be compromised he gave that couple the ability (ability, not permission) to make choices that were not agreed upon.
absurd or not, wrong or not, illegal or not; when you put "the means" into someone's hand they often gain the "ability". compliance is as much a choice as refusal, and it's senseless to be upset by the idea that it's the "bull's" choice; unlocking him when the time came as they agreed would also have been "a choice". to feel that "honoring the agreement" was the only 'acceptable choice' for the "bull" to make is merely acknowledging that it was his choice to make, and his choice was to "violate the consent". which can be some scary shit to consider, but luckily for our imaginary test dummy it wasn't as bad as it could have been. the point is, saying "hey wait, i didn't agree to that" isn't the most practical safety-net to fall back on.
i can't see this scenario as a big deal though. sure, trust and consent can be said to be of the highest importance, but this scenario... it's maybe just slightly above someone handcuffing me to the bed when they told me they'd use rope, or dumping snow down the back of my shirt after promising me "i'm done throwing snowballs". i wouldn't want to ruin the fun and playfulness of hi-jinks and surprises by getting over-dramatic every time there's a slight deviation.
if it was a big deal to "them", they can feel free to treat it like one if they wish. to be honest though i'd have a hard time feeling sorry for the real version of this fake guy. if a random guy randomly agrees to random sexual frivolity on a random weekend with a random couple he just met randomly, and he's fully aware that he's only welcome if he's providing sexual satisfaction to the other two people under the guise of being a servile quasi-human that's only present to facilitate their kinky fuckery... what the hell did he expect?
it's like coming on here and giving 40 bucks to some "divine-deserving-godly-superior-princess of the uber-queen-celestial wolf-domme" from the ancient and noble kingdom of "dimeadozen", but then being oh-so surprised when her empty hand is held out and chasing you all over the place whenever rent is due or her birthday is coming up.
it's like me being caught off-guard when the sensual sadist heavily into otk spankings insists i've done something naughty and need punished for it even though i felt certain i was on my best behavior. and oh how terrible of her that when it was said we'd only be going to 20 strikes she threw in 3 quick extras at the end.
it's like being appalled to find out that a person into degradation wrote something other than "i love you" on your body with that sharpie marker like they promised. *gasp*
even "just the tip" is a less obvious ploy.
to take people blindly at their word... god help this fool when he hears "you don't need a condom".
at any rate, he should have been prepared for things to go wrong regardless of whether it was his lock/cage or theirs. whether it's a spare key or screwdriver in the glove compartment, or bolt cutters in the trunk. when you play with needles and knives you make sure first-aid is around; the same logic applies here.
|
|
|
|
