#metoo

I was just reading about the firing of the NY Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/who-is-eric-schneiderman.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

In the #metoo era, apparently a lack of consent for each individual act (including each individual slap) can translate into a punishable offense, a loss of a job, a loss of a career, and lost wages of millions of dollars.

I ask you, especially the women on this board, what is the sexiest way for a Dom to ask permission of a sub before every single slap?

Would it be something like, "Mistress sub, can I please contact your face with my hand using some appreciable force?"

I read the articles and you're massively twisting this to an absurd degree.
Assuming the claims are true, the guy slaps women who don't ask for it, don't enjoy it, and don't seem to imply at all that they incorporated s/m into their sex lives. Seems pretty clear cut abuse to me. Even if the guy likes doing that sort of thing it's still not ok because the recipients allegedly weren't willing.

Plus you know that whole idea of constant verbal affirmation of consent isn't something 99.9999% of people actually want, right? Since it's ridiculous on the face of it? The only people actually proposing that in seriousness are the fringest of lunatics in modern feminism who believe men are an occupying alien force or something.
If you have some sort of problem with the premises of the claims being made by the women then you're not going to win anybody over by misrepresenting them to the extreme.

Most (all?) D/s arrangements involve acts that are not affirmatively consented in the moment.

In fact, I have experience with slaps in the face, when a sub least expects it and certainly does not want it. (When I say experience, I am not saying that I was the one doing the slapping.) I have also experienced intentionally non-consensual acts that didn't stop until a safe word was uttered. I have also been told that if a Dom were to ask a sub for permission before the Dom slaps a sub, then the experience would be completely ruined. I heard that from a sub.

I can very easily see the above ruining a whole career/life in the #metoo era.

Consider this passage:
One night, they were in the bedroom of his Upper West Side apartment, still clothed but getting ready for bed, and lightly baiting each other. As she recalls it, he called her “a whore,” and she talked back. They had both been drinking, and her recollection of their conversation is blurry, but what happened next remains vivid. Schneiderman, she says, backed her up to the edge of his bed. “All of a sudden, he just slapped me, open-handed and with great force, across the face, landing the blow directly onto my ear,” Manning Barish says.

Blue said:

I read the articles and you're massively twisting this to an absurd degree.
Assuming the claims are true, the guy slaps women who don't ask for it, don't enjoy it, and don't seem to imply at all that they incorporated s/m into their sex lives. Seems pretty clear cut abuse to me. Even if the guy likes doing that sort of thing it's still not ok because the recipients allegedly weren't willing.

Plus you know that whole idea of constant verbal affirmation of consent isn't something 99.9999% of people actually want, right? Since it's ridiculous on the face of it? The only people actually proposing that in seriousness are the fringest of lunatics in modern feminism who believe men are an occupying alien force or something.
If you have some sort of problem with the premises of the claims being made by the women then you're not going to win anybody over by misrepresenting them to the extreme.

Click to expand...

I second these sentiments.

From what I read, this guy went about it in many wrong ways and he hurt people. Adding alcohol to the list of mistakes just makes it a big mess.

There is a bigger picture beyond this guy.

Affirmative consent/#metoo requires continuing verbal affirmative permission for every single act.

How do you/we reconcile this with the practices of the BDSM community?

(The fact that affirmative consent is a joke to some people does not negate the fact that it is law in some states and it is part and parcel with #metoo: "as Manning Barish sees it, “you cannot be a champion of women when you are hitting them and choking them in bed, and saying to them, ‘You’re a fucking whore.’ ”

Oh for fuck’s...

hooterbif said:

Most (all?) D/s arrangements involve acts that are not affirmatively consented in the moment.

Click to expand...

No, but they are consented to beforehand over what should be a lengthy dialogue, reinforced over time via multiple experiences/sessions, and ended if either participant isn’t feeling it/gets overwhelmed/or is hurt. I know, it’s a novel concept, almost like a relationship that includes affection and trust or some shit. Pfffft.

hooterbif said:

I can very easily see the above ruining a whole career/life

Click to expand...

I know right? The nerve of some people! Losing your job and status as a direct result of your actions? It’s almost like you can’t just do what ever the fuck you want and get away with it scott free by copping out with a “ boys will be boys “ attitude anymore. Consequences are for commies, the poor, and people that don’t own assault rifles. Everyone knows that.

hooterbif said:

Consider this passage:
One night, they were in the bedroom of his Upper West Side apartment, still clothed but getting ready for bed, and lightly baiting each other. As she recalls it, he called her “a whore,” and she talked back. They had both been drinking, and her recollection of their conversation is blurry, but what happened next remains vivid. Schneiderman, she says, backed her up to the edge of his bed. “All of a sudden, he just slapped me, open-handed and with great force, across the face, landing the blow directly onto my ear,” Manning Barish says.

Click to expand...

Ohhhhhh, I see. She was askin’ for it. and her not recalling all the details of the conversation that took place beforehand, must mean she deserved to be laid the fuck out by getting pasted one on the side of her head. Yeah, cuz that sounds sexy and not at all like some abusive prick just hitting a woman. Also, ( fun fact #426 ) most “ #TwuDoms “ would know that clapping someone on the ear can cause permanent damage to their hearing and can potentially perforate an ear drum. But I’m sure you already knew that.

hooterbif said:

There is a bigger picture beyond this guy.

Affirmative consent/#metoo requires continuing verbal affirmative permission for every single act.

Click to expand...

You’re acting as if we didn’t always need permission from other people before touching them or engaging in sexual acts. News flash, ALWAYS BEEN A THING. Well, except to rapists and kiddy touchers.

hooterbif said:

How do you/we reconcile this with the practices of the BDSM community?

(The fact that affirmative consent is a joke to some people does not negate the fact that it is law in some states and it is part and parcel with #metoo: "as Manning Barish sees it, “you cannot be a champion of women when you are hitting them and choking them in bed, and saying to them, ‘You’re a fucking whore.’ ”

Click to expand...

Reconcile what? What the fuck are you so scared of?!? Get permission before engaging in sexual activity with a woman. How fucking hard is that to understand. Don’t like being rejected or hearing no? Too bad. Worried someone won’t like being slapped, oh gee I don’t know, ASK!
Know what doesn’t help? Acting like a smarmy, passive aggressive, chode by dismissing a movement designed to promote women not putting up with physical abuse and sexual harassment. If you are so god damned worried about getting in trouble or being accused of something, then you’re doing it wrong and probably deserve it. Period. End of story. Full goddamn stop. Is that clear enough? Or do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

Blue said:

I read the articles and you're massively twisting this to an absurd degree.
Assuming the claims are true, the guy slaps women who don't ask for it, don't enjoy it, and don't seem to imply at all that they incorporated s/m into their sex lives. Seems pretty clear cut abuse to me. Even if the guy likes doing that sort of thing it's still not ok because the recipients allegedly weren't willing.

Plus you know that whole idea of constant verbal affirmation of consent isn't something 99.9999% of people actually want, right? Since it's ridiculous on the face of it? The only people actually proposing that in seriousness are the fringest of lunatics in modern feminism who believe men are an occupying alien force or something.
If you have some sort of problem with the premises of the claims being made by the women then you're not going to win anybody over by misrepresenting them to the extreme.

Click to expand...

This!

Vail_Indigo said:

I think this thread should be renamed to "I don't know anything about BDSM or consent. May I say something moronic?"

Click to expand...

This is not a bad idea...

High school essay assignment?

If 4 separate women didn't consent to being choked, chances are, this guy was shit at consent AT BEST.

I'd love to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't sound like this was BDSM. It sounds like this was abuse, from a guy who's trying to hide behind BDSM.

_Necrosomantic_ said:

Know what doesn’t help? Acting like a smarmy, passive aggressive, chode by dismissing a movement designed to promote women not putting up with physical abuse and sexual harassment. If you are so god damned worried about getting in trouble or being accused of something, then you’re doing it wrong and probably deserve it. Period. End of story. Full goddamn stop. Is that clear enough? Or do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

Click to expand...

Affirmative consent requires a verbal statement of consent before each individual act, not lengthy conversations beforehand.

Your recipe would not hold up in court. Period. End of story. Full goddamn stop. Is that clear enough? Or do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

So, instead of dismissing my point, why not answer the question? What agreement would satisfy affirmative consent laws?

richard_daily said:

If 4 separate women didn't consent to being choked, chances are, this guy was shit at consent AT BEST.

I'd love to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't sound like this was BDSM. It sounds like this was abuse, from a guy who's trying to hide behind BDSM.

Click to expand...

That is my knee jerk response, too. I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn't there. What conversations did they have during the time that she couldn't recall what was said?

hooterbif said:

Affirmative consent requires a verbal statement of consent before each individual act, not lengthy conversations beforehand.

Your recipe would not hold up in court. Period. End of story. Full goddamn stop. Is that clear enough? Or do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

So, instead of dismissing my point, why not answer the question? What agreement would satisfy affirmative consent laws?

Click to expand...

Ummmm, most lengthy conversations in a relationship (which these were) talk about sex. They were dating.
They didn’t expect the slap.
4 women came forward with the same story.

Is that clear?
Look at your OP.

Do you know how to negotiate relationships? What is the sexiest way for a Dom to get consent for each slap?
And calling the thread me too, but making it about BDSM. It has nothing to do with that.

hooterbif said:

That is my knee jerk response, too. I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn't there. What conversations did they have during the time that she couldn't recall what was said?

Click to expand...

Not saying yes, slap me, is recalled.
Nice try.

richard_daily said:

If 4 separate women didn't consent to being choked, chances are, this guy was shit at consent AT BEST.

I'd love to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't sound like this was BDSM. It sounds like this was abuse, from a guy who's trying to hide behind BDSM.

Click to expand...

This.

hooterbif said:

Affirmative consent requires a verbal statement of consent before each individual act, not lengthy conversations beforehand.

Your recipe would not hold up in court. Period. End of story. Full goddamn stop. Is that clear enough? Or do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

So, instead of dismissing my point, why not answer the question? What agreement would satisfy affirmative consent laws?

Click to expand...

I don't think your description of affirmative consent is quite accurate. Here's the key language from California's affirmative consent law:

“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

The law does not explicitly require that before each act a person must give consent. It does not preclude the possibility that a person can consent beforehand to multiple acts. The key point is that you can't infer consent to one act from consent to another. So it's the dominant's responsibility to be very explicit beforehand with the sub to get the sub's permission to specific acts.

I didn't see anything in the reporting on the NY AG that it had anything to do with BDSM. Sounds like a straight up case of abuse, to me.

hooterbif said:

Affirmative consent requires a verbal statement of consent before each individual act, not lengthy conversations beforehand.

Your recipe would not hold up in court.

So, instead of dismissing my point, why not answer the question? What agreement would satisfy affirmative consent laws?

Click to expand...

Not only are you blowing this way out of proportion, as has been stated previously, but you’re now purposely missing the point. BDSM involves the informed consent of both parties before any advancement is made towards physical contact of any sort. In a relationship, discussions should be had between two people prior to initiating play. You don’t follow up light flirting with a sucker punch from left field. This is not a common occurrence in BDSM, it is a common occurance with guys who think they’re gender/position/paycheck gives them the right to do whatever the fuck they want. And I didn’t dismiss your point, I mocked an idiot for acting like this is all some uncharted territory and we all need to put on our helmets and get ready for court fees and depositions because some slimy fuck got exposed.

You are making a much larger deal out of something that is plain as day logic. Don’t hit people who don’t want to be hit and you won’t end up in court trying to kick dirt over the fact that you’re an asshole. While we’re at it, water is wet, the sky is blue, fire hot, and you should always look both ways before crossing the street. Any other kindergarten level abstractions you need typed up submitted in triplicate to the judge and prosecution? Or are you just going to continue on with this empty and insulting argument about how you have to ask if it’s okay before every individual spanking, all because those mean ol’ girls want to be asked permission before you touch them? Because I’m all out of crayons and patience, so just reread what everybody else has said if you want further corroboration that you’re just being an obtuse dick.

Most (all?) D/s arrangements involve acts that are not affirmatively consented in the moment.

Click to expand...

At the exact second of the act? No, there's no affirmation.

However there needs to be an explicit consent given prior to BDSM session that X, Y and Z will be part of your play. In other words, the sub needs to be aware that face slapping may come up during your games, and be okay with it.
Additionally, the submissive needs to be explicitly aware of the safe words if you plan to do ANY power exchange.

If such consent was not given prior to sex, but you suddenly had an inventive idea - then yes, you ask. "Can I slap you over the face?" It's easy. You don't just go ahead and DO it! Just because you are a Dominant - doesn't mean you get the power to decide things on a whim. That's a fantasy - the reality of BDSM is that 99% of submissives do not want to be surprised with face slapping when they hadn't discussed it prior to that.

If you are only starting your BDSM play with someone - you should confirm everything with them. Every activity or position. You also check in with them DURING the scene to ensure they are enjoying it and not otherwise.
Later, when you have a developed relationship, some things may become taken for granted. But this clearly was not the case with the guy in question.

On the topic of Schneiderman and affirmative consent:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...cellent-argument-for-affirmative-consent.html

SimonDoom said:

I don't think your description of affirmative consent is quite accurate. Here's the key language from California's affirmative consent law:

“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

The law does not explicitly require that before each act a person must give consent. It does not preclude the possibility that a person can consent beforehand to multiple acts. The key point is that you can't infer consent to one act from consent to another. So it's the dominant's responsibility to be very explicit beforehand with the sub to get the sub's permission to specific acts.

I didn't see anything in the reporting on the NY AG that it had anything to do with BDSM. Sounds like a straight up case of abuse, to me.

Click to expand...

https://newrepublic.com/article/119459/californias-campus-consent-laws-every-sex-act-potential-crime


Laws governing sexual conduct are about to change for the worse. With 20 percent of female students reporting sexual-assault incidents, California's State Senate recently passed legislation to target the crime on campuses. Bill 967, which passed unanimously and is also known as the "yes means yes" law, stipulates that colleges will receive state funding only if they adopt certain policies regarding sexual assault, chief among them being “an affirmative consent standard.” For sexual activity to be lawful, "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" must be given. The bill goes on to assert that "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

In other words, in order for sex to be lawful, both parties must acknowledge verbally and continuously that they are indeed in the mood for love (the word “verbal” was removed from the bill, but it seems impossible to satisfy the conditions nonverbally). If no used to mean no, under Bill 967, an absence of yes now means no, too.

Stag of Oberon said:

Instead; Have those talks, and get on the same page as your partner, & have those scenes in private, because you are legally at their mercy the very first time you leave a photographable bruise. Obviously, in the current social climate; that goes triple for male dominants with female submissives.

Click to expand...

These talks will not hold up in court. Also, during the "believe the victim" mentality of #metoo, you will be guilty until proven innocent. Without a written contract, how will you prove your innocence?

hooterbif said:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119459/californias-campus-consent-laws-every-sex-act-potential-crime


Laws governing sexual conduct are about to change for the worse. With 20 percent of female students reporting sexual-assault incidents, California's State Senate recently passed legislation to target the crime on campuses. Bill 967, which passed unanimously and is also known as the "yes means yes" law, stipulates that colleges will receive state funding only if they adopt certain policies regarding sexual assault, chief among them being “an affirmative consent standard.” For sexual activity to be lawful, "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" must be given. The bill goes on to assert that "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

In other words, in order for sex to be lawful, both parties must acknowledge verbally and continuously that they are indeed in the mood for love (the word “verbal” was removed from the bill, but it seems impossible to satisfy the conditions nonverbally). If no used to mean no, under Bill 967, an absence of yes now means no, too.

Click to expand...

You're quoting an opinion piece in the New Republic, not a case, not guidelines developed by a prosecutor. The fact is, it has yet to be seen exactly what impact this law has. But, in any event, "continuously" and "ongoing" do not necessarily mean that each partner must expressly give oral consent before every single act. That's your interpretation, I suppose, but you cite no authority that any court has adopted it. The language could be interpreted a different way, and I suspect it will be, because it's simply too impractical to insist that oral consent be given before every new act of touching.

To understand how to interpret the law you have to look at its intent, which you are overlooking. The point of the law is to clarify that just because a person has consented to one act does not mean the person has consented to all the acts that follow. The purpose of the law could be satisfied, I think, if, for example, a woman expressly consented to a variety of acts, including the taping of her mouth, and the man subsequently taped her mouth shut and did the things she agreed to have done. That might qualify, under this language, as "ongoing" consent.

Until we have an actual case in which BDSM participants have been prosecuted under the circumstances you describe, you should dial back your confidence that this is what the law means. You don't know.

And, in any event, as I and others have said, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the NY AG, who just looks like an abuser.

SimonDoom said:

The point of the law is to clarify that just because a person has consented to one act does not mean the person has consented to all the acts that follow.

Click to expand...

Many people contributed to the advancement of that law. There is not one "single" intent for the law. Another intent is to provide more leverage in false allegations of rape/abuse.

hooterbif said:

Many people contributed to the advancement of that law. There is not one "single" intent for the law. Another intent is to provide more leverage in false allegations of rape/abuse.

Click to expand...

You believe that the intent of the law is to provide leverage in false accusations of rape and/or abuse? Aren’t you a special snowflake?

ToPleaseHim said:

You believe that the intent of the law is to provide leverage in false accusations of rape and/or abuse? Aren’t you a special snowflake?

Click to expand...

^^ OP has had trust problems with his “subs” in the past. This thread doesn’t surprise me.

#metoo has nothing to do with “strengthening” false allegations. It has everything to do with showing how wide spread the problem many women face is.

#metoomotherfucker

MeekMe said:

^^ OP has had trust problems with his “subs” in the past. This thread doesn’t surprise me.

#metoo has nothing to do with “strengthening” false allegations. It has everything to do with showing how wide spread the problem many women face is.

#metoomotherfucker

Click to expand...