|
UllrsIshtar -> RE: Best. Analogy. Ever! (Look inside) (9/27/2015 3:03:09 PM)
|
I wanna add some things to that video specifically for the kink community, based on some of the weirdo misrepresentations of consent violations I've seen in the kink community over the years...
Seeing that "tea" stands for "sex", I will replace "kink" with "coffee" so that the issues don't get confused.
____
While pouring coffee down somebody's mouth without first asking them if they want you to pour coffee down their mouth is no cool under any circumstance, simple OFFERING them coffee, and waiting to see if they want it is not a consent violation.
Examples of the contrary to this I've seen in the kink community:
- The claim that, when meeting somebody for the first time, sticking out your hand to indicate that you'd like to shake hands is a consent violation, because you're "pressuring them" into bodily contact they may not want.
To be clear: going to somebody and grabbing their hand, or grabbing them for a hug, without first checking if it's cool, is not okay. Merely indicating that you would like to shake hands by sticking out yours is NOT a consent violation.
- The claim that asking a stranger in a club if they would like to engage in X-type play with you is a consent violation, again because you're "pressuring them" into play they might not want to have.
To be clear: nagging, peer pressuring, or forcing somebody to play is not cool. Merely asking them if they'd like to is not a consent violation.
____
You have the legal right to brew coffee ANY place where it's legal for you to brew coffee. If there happen to be third parties present who are uncomfortable at you brewing coffee in a place where it's legal for you to do so, you are NOT violating their consent, because, by being in a place where it's legal for your to brew coffee, they have implicitly consented to witnessing the brewing of coffee.
Brewing alcohol, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. It is generally not legal to brew alcohol in public places (in the US) and it's especially inappropriate to do so with kids around. Brewing alcohol in public places DOES violate third party's consent, because they did not implicitly agree to see you brew alcohol around their kids.
Examples of this I've seen in the kink community:
- The claim that a Little playing on a playground in a public park (without sexual subtext) is a third party consent violation, because she's "secretly" engaging in kink and exposing others.
- The claim that wearing an obvious collar in public is a consent violation, because adults are going to know what it is and what it means, and it's going to make them feel uncomfortable.
- The claim that gay guys kissing in front of the religious right (or their kids) is a consent violation, because the religious right did not consent to seeing gay guys kiss (in front of their kids).
To be clear: engaging in ILLEGAL behavior in public, be it kinky or otherwise, is a third party consent violation, because people did not implicitly agree to seeing illegal behavior in public. However, if you're legally engaging in kink by going down a slide, barking at another dog, wearing a collar, or calling your Top "Master", you are not violating others consent, EVEN if it makes them uncomfortable when you do so.
This is because, people who go to public places implicitly consent to seeing stuff that's legal to happen in such public places, even if it makes them uncomfortable due to their own believes.
This implied consent extends to mini-skirts and burkas, people of any gender kissing or holding hands with people of whichever other gender, punkers, hippies, mormons and kinksters wearing clothing outside of the norm (that's legal), and so on.
Other people's discomfort at legal behavior in a public place does not equate to consent violations.
____
If you ask somebody is they'd like coffee, and they're not sure because they've never had coffee before, it's a good idea to inform them of their options (coffee with milk/sugar/black). If they then tell you that they'd like to try coffee with milk and sugar (the way you tend to drink it) and you brew them a cup, they try it, and halfway through the cup they decide that they don't like milk and sugar in their coffee after all, and you smile, tell them "that's alright" and take away the cup, you did NOT violate their consent. Of course, if the moment they decide they don't like milk and sugar in their coffee after all, you force them to finish the cup, cause, after all, you already made it, you are violating consent...
Examples I've seen of this in the kink community:
- A scene gets negotiated with the bottom being unsure of what they want or like. The scene goes off without a glitch. At no point does the bottom complain. But then, a few days later (usually after talking to some 'friends') the bottom decides they didn't like the scene after all, and accuses the Top of consent violation.
- Or, the scene gets negotiated, and halfway through the scene the bottom safewords, so the Top stops the entire scene. Afterwards, despite the Top stopping at the first sign of trouble, they still get accused of a consent violation, because they didn't predict that to the bottom would want to safeword if they carried on until the point that the bottom did indeed safeword.
To be clear: if a bottom changes their mind during the scene and lets the Top know, and the Top refuses to stop, that IS a consent violation. However, you cannot accuse somebody AFTER the fact that they violated your consent if you first said "yes" and then at no point in time indicated that you changed your mind by saying "no/safeword" DURING the scene.
The Top isn't a mindreader, they're going to go on based on your previous consent UNTIL you indicate that that consent changed. Them doing so when you secretly changed you mind but didn't say so is NOT a consent violation.
___
I'm sure there are more, but those are some of the bizarre ones off the top of my head I've seen in kink-land over the past decade or so.
|
|
|
|
