RE: Dispositional Dissonance

RE: Dispositional Dissonance (Full Version)

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

Message

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 6:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Before that point, I don't give a royal crap if under your roof, you command that your s-type opens his/her veins, while swinging from the chandelier, everyday at exactly 6:03 PM, during a chorus of "Nearer My God to Thee". If you knew me better, LadyPact, you would know I would never do that in a million years. I'll let you in on a little secret about french canadians. We express time using the 24-hour clock.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 6:30:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: With respect to the theory of consent, I'm not familiar with the particular version you're referring to to, but I think I get the gist. Consent is not a theory, it is the heart of this weird shit we do. I consent, until I no longer consent. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As you will find, I do not think of consent as just a theory. (I know I speak poorly from time to time.) Ladies, I'm the one who wrote poorly, if only to not specify what a theory means to me. In my world, to call something a theory is not to order its relationship to reality. "Just a theory" is as applicable to Newton's or Einstein's descriptions of the mechanisms behind gravity. There are simple and complex theories, poor and elegant theories and most importantly disproven and accepted theories. I'll try to make a habit of posting on this site, so if in the future you see me write the word theory, pray read not the least judgement of the merits of the theory unless I've explicitly made a claim.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 6:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bhruic First... I detect (by your use of "celestial dictatorship") a Hitchens fan. Hello brother! Thank you, comrade. I had the good fortune of meeting the man while he was on the right side of the ground. His every word in person had a polished and cutting, yet natural aspect such that there was no rough. Even at his most spontaneous, this was a vein that spewed gems fit for a jeweller. I have since met two other horsemen, and though these days I'm much more into Boghossian's hornets, I would call their imprint indelible. quote: I think the contradictions are not innate in the situations, but enforced by narrow social perceptions, and the desire people seem to have to see life in black and white terms. For example... I see no conflict in owning a bicycle and a pick up truck. If you were a zealot about emissions and fuel economy, and owned a pickup truck, that might be a different matter. I was really trying to get at those contradictions which are innate. If there are such things. The examples of bicycles and Sam Elliot's favourite truck were meant as an example of just the social perceptions type, which I was trying to stay away from.

MrRodgers -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 7:05:36 PM)
First of all, I have a problem with the expression of TPE...meaning total power exchange. If I am to understand the question of there being any moral dilemma, (dissonance) then it must apply to the real meaning of these relationships. What we most practice is TPL. A total power loss and it is a voluntary loss of power i.e., consensual slavery or call it ownership. It passed moral muster once one party confirms one consent. That consent now instructs the observer that each party is giving the other what they want. It is just that, that is and has been my view over the years...the basis of success. Thus I see no dissonance i.e, discord, disagreement or incongruity.

JeffBC -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 8:56:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As you will find, I do not think of consent as just a theory. (I know I speak poorly from time to time.) Consent is supposed to be the backbone of everything we do in kink. Without it, we are nothing but vicious animals. Yes, non-consensual sexual activities are reprehensible. But that word "consent" can by pretty squirrely. That's why there is room for "theories of consent".

Greta75 -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 11:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 When I am in "play". I shut out the guilty feelings and focus on the enjoyment. I think the ability to do so well, concentration and deep mindfulness techniques are essential, and not just to thoroughly enjoying the finest roughness. Has the potency of your ability to shut one out always been sufficient, or is this something you've had to work on? Does the challenge of shutting them out increase along with their respective magnitudes? Is it easier or harder today than when you were 18? I never had a challenge being totally in focus when I am in "play". I can't even describe to you the love and addiction I have for it. Like, I'm doing something I genuinely love, it's pretty difficult not give full focus to it, when it is happening. And very often as it is happening, I feel my spirit leave my body and observe myself as a third party, being fascinated about what's going on, and just feeling surreal it is happening. It brings me so much joy every time and each time. When I was in 24/7, I was just looking forward to come home from work every day! And looking forward to wake up every morning! Looking forward to stay inside that very happy space! That's why the conflict only happens when I am back to regular world, out of that "happy space" when reality sets in. I mean, people like to say it's a lifestyle and all, to me, there will always be vanilla life and kink life as two separate lives, because, I can never see how my kink can blend with my vanilla, nor can I ever see, how I can ever be open about it at work or with family or friends without dire consequences. It's always two different worlds for me. I think it's a little like any other type of addictions, like drugs, gambling or drinking. People only think about the feelings of guilt AFTER they have done it..., and sober, maybe.... Except, fortunately, this "addiction", isn't a harmful one. I only consider an "addiction" harmful if it starts hurting me or hurting others. But bdsm is pleasure for both involve, and doesn't affect anybody else. The interesting thing about 18 is that. BDSM was so natural for me, that I already dabbled in it since 13. I taught boys what I wanted. And at that age, you're soo innocent. Everything feels so natural and fun. BDSM to me is like being homosexual. I didn't choose it, it was naturally there since I was a kid. I have always lived and breathe it. Nobody introduced it to me or taught me. I had all these things I knew I was gonna enjoy that I wanted to experience, and seriously, as a kid, you don't even realise these are sexual things at all. You just know you'll absolutely love it. And as children, other kids role play things. like maybe pretending to be a mom to a doll, or pretending to be a cook or have a tea party. I was role playing torture and bdsm. Everytime i look back at my thoughts and feelings a child, i just saw them as normal role play, like kids pretending to be soldiers or doctors or whatever other games kids play and pretend among themselves. Like I don't know where that came from and where I got the bdsm ideas from. Only as you get older, then you start realising how this is seriously not fun if it was non-consensual for other women, then it starts you feeling guilty about it. Because I didn't even what the word "molestation" is, or what is "molest" until 13. I just always been a very natural sexual person since a kid. Even though I was brought up in a typical conservative environment, save your virginity for marriage, even holding hands with a boy at 18 would be frown upon. Infact I had 6pm curfew until I was 18 yr old and wasn't allowed to hang out with boys at all period. But of course I found ways around it since young without my parent's knowledge. Both parents are full time working, so they can't really monitor that much anyway. But like for me, I have always wondered why should I feel guilty about my sexuality? It harms nobody! People just getting stupid about it, because of what? How does me interacting sexually with anybody affect anybody else? It brings me joy, it brings the other consensual person joy. As a kid, I have always questioned, why the hell people want to make me feel bad about it? And I have always enjoyed so much, that I can't be bothered about that type of guilt. But I guess it's different when you are into pain and humiliation and torture. Yea, it's just complicated the whole rationalizing about that part of things. Especially when I get pleasure from what others can use for harm to others.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/11/2016 6:09:16 AM)
quote: But that word "consent" can by pretty squirrely. Not really, it's pretty easy and clear.

Shandirra -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/11/2016 6:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC But that word "consent" can by pretty squirrely. Consent is finite. It's either "Yes." or lack of it equals "NO!". Nothing ambiguous about it.

FieryOpal -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/11/2016 6:25:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre There are simple and complex theories, poor and elegant theories and most importantly disproven and accepted theories. I'll try to make a habit of posting on this site, so if in the future you see me write the word theory, pray read not the least judgement of the merits of the theory unless I've explicitly made a claim. Why? Are you a special snowflake of protocol whom the rest of us have been duly informed that we should make an exception and a unique exemption for? Would you dare take the position that your professional resumé contains theoretical job experience and theoretical accomplishments you have made, rather than the actual practice and applications thereof... no, because that would just make you out to be a boldfaced liar. A charlatan. Perhaps you can speak with a forked tongue to your know-nothing 30-something peers and get away with this b.s. with them. I bring your age into this discussion because those are the classical identity crisis years where the angst of "dissonance" might as well be your middle name. Referring back to your OP, if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, you would be yet another clueless Dumbass Dumbinant to make such a foolish statement as quoted below. Are you a green-behind-the-ears newbie who is unaware that there is no such thing as "irrevocable TPE" and no such thing as "genuine captivity" which is not a victimless crime? Abusive criminal conduct is not BDSM. quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre For example, I have a profound love of freedom,... and yet I'm comfortable with irrevocable TPE with genuine captivity. That you are too clever for your own good, is undiminished in my opinion [8D]. Consequently, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you are theoretically as much a danger to civilized society as a rabidly feral savage beast. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As you will find, I do not think of consent as just a theory. (I know I speak poorly from time to time.) Consent is supposed to be the backbone of everything we do in kink. Without it, we are nothing but vicious animals. Yes, non-consensual sexual activities are reprehensible. But that word "consent" can by pretty squirrely. That's why there is room for "theories of consent". Not in my world of mutually agreed-upon consent. In my vivid D/s technicolor world, there are no operative shades of gray areas falling under theoretical consent. YMMV--mine doesn't. [:)]

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/11/2016 8:04:12 AM)
Hello FieryOpal, How are you this fine morning? I did not introduce the word T-word into this thread. I simply tried to use to to relate to what someone was saying. In their reply, I got the impression that they thought I treated the concept with undue levity using the phrase 'theories of consent'. I made every effort to clarify that when I write, or even read, the T-word I do my best not to let the T-word have an effect on what I think about what it is describing.

FieryOpal -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/11/2016 9:08:14 AM)
Fair enough, OP. I haven't the time to split hairs with you on matters which do not impinge upon the fundamental BDSM and non-vanilla D/s tenet of what constitutes willfully given consent between consenting adults. I should note this correction, as highlighted. Must have been a Freudian slip! [:-] quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal yet another clueless Domass Dumbinant What does tie back in to your OP, which you posed with sincerity, is that I personally do not believe in any form of "slavery" by virtue of its core precepts. I don't do slaves; I do not accept the contradictory nature of an individual having a slave mindset, irrespective of how consensually such slavishness is entered into. Submission, yes, offered interactively, submission which is continually affirmed and reaffirmed in an ongoing fashion and in a proactive manner throughout the duration of our D/s (Mistress/sub-pet) ownership commitment. As for further "contradictions" and "principles that you hold closely in your mind which are antithetical to each other?", this is a profound question dealing in varying degrees of complexity, so I'll be as succinct as possible: -- Since I view and treat my submissive partner as my lover, he has equal value in our F/m relationship dynamic as my FLR mate, as my future or next sub husband. -- In terms of fairness, I am mindful of our greater good as a couple. I consider myself a person who can be reasoned with. This is not just some titillating fantasy roleplay for us to engage in for the sake of frivolous, licentious amusement. -- The bottom line is, if we do not have a synergistic partnership which consistently bears fruitful results in the long haul, then both of us would be spinning our wheels and wasting each other's time.

LadyPact -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 7:46:55 AM)
My apologies. I've been ridiculously busy getting ready for a trip in a few days. I'll apologize for not responding in a timely manner, both in retrospect and in advance. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact As you will find, I do not think of consent as just a theory. (I know I speak poorly from time to time.) Consent is supposed to be the backbone of everything we do in kink. Without it, we are nothing but vicious animals. Yes, non-consensual sexual activities are reprehensible. But that word "consent" can by pretty squirrely. That's why there is room for "theories of consent". I probably should not have used the term theory of consent at all. It really should have been the principle of consent and how people apply that. If we believe that consent must be obtained prior to whatever people are going to engage in, we must also believe that the removal of consent has the same importance, even in the all or nothing propositions. There is a section of folks out there who, in their dynamics do one time blanket consent, and as long as that 'yes' is viable, that's the way the parties are choosing to live. Up until that consent is withdrawn, the consent still stands because both parties are still willing to abide by whatever agreement has been made. Withdraw of consent is a different animal. Any authority given under the original negotiation is removed. A 'no' from a former partner (which is what you really are when consent from either party has been removed) is no different than never obtaining the 'yes' from a person walking down the street. One of the reasons behind me misspeaking and calling it the 'theory of consent,' is because you're going to find some kinky people talk about this a lot when it comes to play, rather than the same proposition applying to dynamics. As a hypothetical, let's say I went to the club last weekend, negotiated a scene, we engaged, and both parties had a great time. If weekend after next, I see the same person at the club, offer to play with them, and for whatever reason they turn me down, but against their will, I force them to engage with me anyway... What is that? The parallel to this is irrecoverable TPE. It is one person removing their yes, changing it to no, and just because the other party is still saying yes means that rules the day. If we really believe that we are living alternatively based on the free will to do so, doesn't the same have to apply in reverse?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 8:34:21 AM)
Once a yes has changed to a no, continuing is neither moral nor ethical, it is in effect rape.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 10:58:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers First of all, I have a problem with the expression of TPE...meaning total power exchange. If I am to understand the question of there being any moral dilemma, (dissonance) then it must apply to the real meaning of these relationships. What we most practice is TPL. I don't know that the dissonance or dilemma need be a moral one. I think one can hold contradictory positions without any moral aspect to them.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 12:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Once a yes has changed to a no, continuing is neither moral nor ethical, it is in effect rape. Consent is not why I started this thread, but I see a lot of people have chimed in. I have found some of the posts instructive. There are some concepts that I've never really considered, or haven't considered them recently. I do not have any experience negotiating short term agreements about consent. I have never participated in the play or scene aspect of events. I also have no intention of doing so in the future. This could be why my experience and knowledge of consent is rather narrow. The odd thing I've learned about consent, is that that the way it has been mostly described here is something of a limited version of the whole concept. In terms of sets, it seems to me the axiomatic concept contains the ethical principle, which contains the legal principle, which contains other, more limited principles, one of which is described by a partial consensus of posters in this thread. Dizzy, I do not claim to be an absolutely good moral actor. For resolving the internal conflict around consent and TPE, I'm comfortable for reasons I went into earlier.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 12:21:59 PM)
quote: The odd thing I've learned about consent, is that that the way it has been mostly described here is something of a limited version of the whole concept. You learned the wrong lesson.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 12:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The odd thing I've learned about consent, is that that the way it has been mostly described here is something of a limited version of the whole concept. You learned the wrong lesson. Would you enlighten me as to the even thing?

LadyPact -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 3:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Consent is not why I started this thread, but I see a lot of people have chimed in. I have found some of the posts instructive. There are some concepts that I've never really considered, or haven't considered them recently. Isn't that exactly the point? Your thread is on dissonance, is it not? You have in your original freedom vrs tpe. quote: I do not have any experience negotiating short term agreements about consent. I have never participated in the play or scene aspect of events. I also have no intention of doing so in the future. This could be why my experience and knowledge of consent is rather narrow. I am utterly confused as to why you think duration matters. Whether a finite end time or one undefined. In your original, you specifically mention TPE. For you to have TPE, another person has given you that power because they owned their personal power to begin with. I can't give you my neighbor's car because it's not mine to give. I could, theoretically, give you my car, because it is mine to give. quote: The odd thing I've learned about consent, is that that the way it has been mostly described here is something of a limited version of the whole concept. Kind of backwards. You still haven't been able to do it the other way around. If a person has freedom, they can do with it as they wish. If they enter an agreement of their own free will, the basic, human right to remove themselves from it must be recognized. quote: In terms of sets, it seems to me the axiomatic concept contains the ethical principle, which contains the legal principle, which contains other, more limited principles, one of which is described by a partial consensus of posters in this thread. Part of the issue here is that you are not questioning yourself. As a proponent of irrevocable TPE, you must ask yourself why basic human rights no longer apply and what justifies your authority in denying them. One solid foundation of a reason will do. Before you formulate an answer, I would ask you to think about a few other things we have in civilized society... Divorce. Terms of employment. Credit card agreements. ToS. (I'm pretty sure you get the point.)

FieryOpal -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 4:08:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Consent is not why I started this thread, but I see a lot of people have chimed in. I have found some of the posts instructive. There are some concepts that I've never really considered, or haven't considered them recently. Isn't that exactly the point? Your thread is on dissonance, is it not? You have in your original freedom vrs tpe. <snip> Part of the issue here is that you are not questioning yourself. As a proponent of irrevocable TPE, you must ask yourself why basic human rights no longer apply and what justifies your authority in denying them. One solid foundation of a reason will do. This must be why old-school BDSM 1-year (renewable) slave contracts were originally designed. For those "Masters" (and "slaves") who just don't get it. [sm=ugh.gif]

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/12/2016 4:19:25 PM)
quote: Would you enlighten me as to the even thing? That there is no such thing as irrevocable consent in a relationship.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875