quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
LP, does this represent a departure for you from a previously held notion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
LP, does this represent a departure for you from a previously held notion?

My apologies for the delay. Hectic week on this end. If I actually accomplish everything I intend to do before Christmas, I'm going to surprise myself.

I'd have to say yes from a few different angles. The only slack I'll cut myself would be the idea that, for a certain time period, I never really had to think it through. Can't claim complete ignorance but didn't really connect the dots, either.

I added outing to my definition of consent violation a good ten years after my introduction to kink. I mean, I knew what outing was, knew it was wrong... I just didn't know anybody, in person, who had actually done it.

That changed in 2009. Pretty bad instance of it, too. Former D/s (M/f) couple had split. (She was the one who ended it.) After he came to the realization that she wouldn't come back to him, he proceeded to **GO** to her workplace, and out her to her boss. Contacted certain members of her family, too. No mistake. No 'accident'. No doubt about who did it. Very clear, conscious decision and malicious intent.

If we were talking about consent violations the way most people think of them, this wouldn't even be a question. Bottom says 'no canes,' top proceeds to use a cane anyway, bingo. Consent violation. So, if we think that, shouldn't that logic extend to things like intentional outing? Isn't outing just as much against the ideal of the theory of consent as the person who whacks somebody with a cane after they've said no? That particular case of outing convinced me that the answer was "yes".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Before we get to 'political issue', I'll just state from the outset that I had it right from the start; that politics qua politics is the bane of any society.
There is nothing in all my years of readings of myriad newspapers and magazines an numerous books from the library and umpteen classes at the uni that have done anything but reinforce my estimation thereby.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
My apologies for the delay. Hectic week on this end. If I actually accomplish everything I intend to do before Christmas, I'm going to surprise myself.
I'd have to say yes from a few different angles. The only slack I'll cut myself would be the idea that, for a certain time period, I never really had to think it through. Can't claim complete ignorance but didn't really connect the dots, either.
I added outing to my definition of consent violation a good ten years after my introduction to kink. I mean, I knew what outing was, knew it was wrong... I just didn't know anybody, in person, who had actually done it.
That changed in 2009. Pretty bad instance of it, too. Former D/s (M/f) couple had split. (She was the one who ended it.) After he came to the realization that she wouldn't come back to him, he proceeded to **GO** to her workplace, and out her to her boss. Contacted certain members of her family, too. No mistake. No 'accident'. No doubt about who did it. Very clear, conscious decision and malicious intent.
If we were talking about consent violations the way most people think of them, this wouldn't even be a question. Bottom says 'no canes,' top proceeds to use a cane anyway, bingo. Consent violation. So, if we think that, shouldn't that logic extend to things like intentional outing? Isn't outing just as much against the ideal of the theory of consent as the person who whacks somebody with a cane after they've said no? That particular case of outing convinced me that the answer was "yes".

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
I don't know, LP, that sounds like quite the can of worms.