Consent?

[richard_daily]

Is there a choice? This is closely rated to the concept of free will, which I'm basically required to refute as a dominant. If I have no control over the will of someone, then all my results are merely the result of good luck.

Simple example:
I ask you to pick either the red or black panties. You choose the black panties. You would say it was your free choice.

Now I erase your memory of your choice and send us back in time. Then I ask you again. And you choose the black panties again. If I do this 1000 times and you choose 1000 times the black panties because 1000 times you have made the very same thoughts and you came to the very same conclusions like "red is too naughty today" - where is the free will? Although in theory you could choose the red panties, you won't. You will never. Why would you make a different choice if the premise is always the same? Free will is what *I* observe as outside person who does not know whether you pick red or black.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, I'm going to be honest.

First off, this is a hypothetical, philosophical argument, as has already been said. And even on a philosophical level, there are huge holes in the premise.

How exactly are you required to remove free will as a dominant? Control and free-will are not the same thing, in any way, shape, or form. In situations involving power exchange, control is given through consent, which is a product of free-will.

 

[SlightlyGone]

I just had a look in the library sticky and cannot find any thing specifically under 'consent'.

I wonder if any one has any threads they remember worth reading on this topic or anything specific to say. I've been having some places where my mind hits mazes of wondering..... Without leading the conversation too much it would be good to read thoughts about consent.

Its kind of weird for me to start a thread rather than go digging

What is your question?

 

[Primalex]

How exactly are you required to remove free will as a dominant? Control and free-will are not the same thing, in any way, shape, or form. In situations involving power exchange, control is given through consent, which is a product of free-will.

Which in essence means everyone who gets control in a relationship is a dominant. So all it takes for a dominant to be a dominant is to find someone who is dumb enough to hand over control.

This would be the logical conclusion of your opinion. Together with the problem that it therefore is no longer a personality trait, but a relationship state. Well, my opinion is that dominance is a personality trait and whether there is someone around who can be controlled, is rather secondary.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[richard_daily]

Which in essence means everyone who gets control in a relationship is a dominant. So all it takes for a dominant to be a dominant is to find someone who is dumb enough to hand over control.

This would be the logical conclusion of your opinion. Together with the problem that it therefore is no longer a personality trait, but a relationship state. Well, my opinion is that dominance is a personality trait and whether there is someone around who can be controlled, is rather secondary.

Handing over consent isn't "dumb", it's a requirement for any kink to be above board and not abusive.

If someone can't consent, they can't agree to what they're getting into, and it sounds like you're saying that people "deserve" what they get based on personality traits, rather than agreeing and being fully, completely on board. Both parties have to agree to the terms and conditions of the relationship, from a hour long trist, to a 24/7 TPE.

To ask for anything less from a submissive, means that a dominant is putting themselves in a position where they may be sexually assaulting someone. And anyone not following consent is guilty of abusive behavior.

I think that your position is overly simplistic and dangerous. You're not focusing on consent, but rather what you believe people are "born" to be.

Your posts are waving huge red flags.

 

[SlightlyGone]

Consent? We don't need no stinking consent .... to party.

 

[Lord_Steve]

Handing over consent isn't "dumb", it's a requirement for any kink to be above board and not abusive.

If someone can't consent, they can't agree to what they're getting into, and it sounds like you're saying that people "deserve" what they get based on personality traits, rather than agreeing and being fully, completely on board. Both parties have to agree to the terms and conditions of the relationship, from a hour long trist, to a 24/7 TPE.

To ask for anything less from a submissive, means that a dominant is putting themselves in a position where they may be sexually assaulting someone. And anyone not following consent is guilty of abusive behavior.

I think that your position is overly simplistic and dangerous. You're not focusing on consent, but rather what you believe people are "born" to be.

Your posts are waving huge red flags.

agreedo

 

[Lord_Steve]

the primary concern of a dom should be ensuring that they are fit to be trusted. when your partner says no, you stop and care for them. you should only be as wicked as your partner wants, else you are just an asshole with some props.

no means no, yes means yes. everything else is just caviling.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Primalex]

Handing over consent isn't "dumb", it's a requirement for any kink to be above board and not abusive.

Your reading comprehension skill is rather depressing. I guess your life on the General Board is responsible for this.

I will explain the process of understanding a text for you (just once):

"Which in essence means everyone who gets control in a relationship is a dominant. So all it takes for a dominant to be a dominant is to find someone who is dumb enough to hand over control."

I know, this is a challenging text, but this here is a logical conclusion about a statement someone else made.

I will explain it with a simple example:
Thesis:"Every meat that McDonald's serves is beef!"
Rebut:"So ChickenMcNuggets are made from beef."

In theory, you can add now:
"What kind of bullshit is this? ChickenMcNuggets are made out of chicken, this is what even the name says!!"

Your answer will be 100% correct. Unfortunately it also shows that you are unable or unwilling to follow a conversation. Right now I assume that you are not mentally challenged, but that you are just used to spew something at the last post of a thread, without even attempting to follow a conversation.

So, let me sum it up:
I do not believe that you need to be dumb to engage in kinky activities and McDonald's serves more than beef.

Both parties have to agree to the terms and conditions of the relationship, from a hour long trist, to a 24/7 TPE.

This one is going to be even more challenging.

You talk about that consent is necessary. I talk about what consent actually means.

I will try to explain these two different topics again with a simple example:

If I give a prostitute money to let me fuck her, she will consent to me fucking her. In your simple world, the case is closed now. Consent, yay!

I will add two more questions:
"Is it really consent if her health or the health of her children would depend on getting money fast?"
"What if prostitution is illegal? Does consent override laws? Why? Why not?"

I think that your position is overly simplistic and dangerous.

I think your mind is overly simplistic.
*shrugs*

 

[richard_daily]

Except when no means yes.

But, my pondering is wider than just 'bedroom' ( or kitchen floor, garden lawn, in the woods....) but more about...a deeper reflection of finding myself, of getting over a wall I am building in my mind as fast as I knock it down. . For me somethings are just ..what they are...and others are connected or symbolic and to move forward In comfort I must get some understanding of why this holds me so.

And when no means yes, and you've agreed to it and wanted it, that's consent.

 

[richard_daily]

Y
I will explain the process of understanding a text for you (just once):

"Which in essence means everyone who gets control in a relationship is a dominant. So all it takes for a dominant to be a dominant is to find someone who is dumb enough to hand over control."

I know, this is a challenging text, but this here is a logical conclusion about a statement someone else made.

I will explain it with a simple example:
Thesis:"Every meat that McDonald's serves is beef!"
Rebut:"So ChickenMcNuggets are made from beef."

In theory, you can add now:
"What kind of bullshit is this? ChickenMcNuggets are made out of chicken, this is what even the name says!!"

Your answer will be 100% correct. Unfortunately it also shows that you are unable or unwilling to follow a conversation. Right now I assume that you are not mentally challenged, but that you are just used to spew something at the last post of a thread, without even attempting to follow a conversation.

So, let me sum it up:
I do not believe that you need to be dumb to engage in kinky activities and McDonald's serves more than beef.

I don't think the issue is my reading comprehension, I think the issue is your arrogant lack of being able to understand that not everyone is inside of your head, and that your words are convoluted and confusing at best.

However, I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language, so I'll cut you a little slack.

You still haven't actually stated your position, but rather, tried to go on an existential and philosophical path of: "what is...".

Also, your analogy makes absolutely no sense as a story, and further serves to attempt to convolute your actual position, rather than clarify.

I'm guessing this is purposeful, and I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume that's how you "negotiate" with partners. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if someone accuses you of sexual assault at some point, and if you're ever confused as to why, let me know, and I can explain it for you.

This one is going to be even more challenging.

You do have limited skills with the English language, so I appreciate your willingness to admit that you're having difficulty.

You talk about that consent is necessary. I talk about what consent actually means.

I will try to explain these two different topics again with a simple example:

If I give a prostitute money to let me fuck her, she will consent to me fucking her. In your simple world, the case is closed now. Consent, yay!

I will add two more questions:
"Is it really consent if her health or the health of her children would depend on getting money fast?"
"What if prostitution is illegal? Does consent override laws? Why? Why not?"

You're conflating consent with morality.

Consent in the situation you invented is clear (edited to add: as long as you remove the "will" from your sentence. Even sex workers can deny service to asshole creeps who assume they have "rights" over someone else's body), the morality of it isn't.

There, that was simple, no? Now if you want to actually clarify your position on consent, let me know.

Otherwise, I'll just chalk you up to another "dom" bottom feeder, as I've actually read a couple of your other posts, and I'll have to say that they're extremely painful and reek of abusive tendencies.

I think your mind is overly simplistic.
*shrugs*

And yet, you still can't follow. Curious.

 

[Primalex]

I don't think the issue is my reading comprehension, I think the issue is your arrogant lack of being able to understand that not everyone is inside of your head, and that your words are convoluted and confusing at best.

I'm quite sure they are, considering the content you are used to.

You still haven't actually stated your position

I did. You are just too lazy to invest the time necessary to understand it.

You're conflating consent with morality.

This is interesting.

So if I point a gun at you and ask you to hand over your money and you actually hand over the money, you consent to being robbed and I merely act morally (and maybe legally) wrong?

 

[richard_daily]

I did. You are just too lazy to invest the time necessary to understand it.

Honestly, if all of your posts are like the few I've read, you're not worth the time.

This is interesting.

So if I point a gun at you and ask you to hand over your money and you actually hand over the money, you consent to being robbed and I merely act morally (and maybe legally) wrong?

Your skill in jedi mind control is painfully weak. That's not what I said, and you (hopefully) know it.

 

[Primalex]

Honestly, if all of your posts are like the few I've read, you're not worth the time.

said the Slut Whisperer from the General Board.

That's not what I said, and you (hopefully) know it.

So consent is consent unless the consent is based upon an immediate threat on life?
Does it have to be an immediate threat?

And now we get to the interesting parts:
What if she looks at me, thinks that I look like Hells Angels Master Executioner and she just doesn't dare to say:"No.", although she would like to? Is it still consent if she takes my money or is it merely not my fault that I rape her?

 

[richard_daily]

So consent is consent unless the consent is based upon an immediate threat on life?
Does it have to be an immediate threat?

And now we get to the interesting parts:
What if she looks at me, thinks that I look like Hells Angels Master Executioner and she just doesn't dare to say:"No.", although she would like to? Is it still consent if she takes my money or is it merely not my fault that I rape her?

Are you having conversations that I'm not privy to in your own head? I haven't said any of that, nor implied it. If that's what you're getting out of the conversation, it speaks to a deep, fundamental lack of understanding about consent.

You seem hyper-focused on prostitution. I'm guessing that's your main sexual outlet, and I can give you some insight into why that is, if you'd like.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Primalex]

I haven't said any of that, nor implied it. If that's what you're getting out of the conversation, it speaks to a deep, fundamental lack of understanding about consent.

So far your contribution can be reduced to:"Consent is...goooooood. Me get in trouble when dragging puny woman into cave without it."

I mean, why not, somehow this is fundamental, when even Bob, the cave man, gets it. I don't think I agree on the 'deep' part though. This is as shallow as it can get.

You seem hyper-focused on prostitution.

It's an example that even cave men get and so useful for explanation. Actually, even the stage before the cave men grasps the concept of money and sex.


You again seem hyper-focused on not explaining your position.

I'm guessing that's your main sexual outlet, and I can give you some insight into why that is, if you'd like.

Pretty please, you have my consent to proceed.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Primalex]

Well, i only wish people required consent of thread starters to take tone from civil to else where. .

But this is a great lesson about consent.

You created the thread. You know the forum rules of "(nearly) no rules". So, did you give consent? Why? Why not?

We have the cultural permission to ignore your wishes, manifested as forum rules. I would even dare to say that some would consider your idea of requiring your permission as alien. Yet, morally, it doesn't seem that strange that a thread starter should be able to determine what the thread content is going to be. And there are other societies with different rules were being rude would be frowned upon and we would be punished.

You have just learned that consent even contains a subjective element and cannot be determined merely by objective observation. If I would have said that earlier, some simpletons would have said:"Dude, either she gives consent or not." But as you can see, you didn't give consent that people are rude here, nobody even cared to ask you, because it's not the culture here to do so.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Primalex]

Cultural permission? Hmm. I dunno. Is it a culture for the internet to be rude or does it happen because there is no way to stop it? Its not universal, and if people object to a tone and 'remove consent' it doesn't stop people behaving poorly, suggesting they do not adhere to the 'golden principle' of consent.

You mix up two issues - very much like the NRA guys. If we can't prevent murder anyway, why bother banishing assault rifles?

And yes, if your opinion deviates from the culture and you are the only one, then you will be likely and hopefully just ignored. If there is a chance that you might change the culture, you will face resistance. People don't change just because something is somewhere morally right.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[MeekMe]

So, now forums are the example.

On forums where there is a tighter code of coduct...people aren't so hyper...or are and get banned or timed out. Here where the rules are 'almost no rules' ( or however you phrased it, please forgive me not reading back', some people do behave within a code of civility, others don't.

I'm not really interested in the 'culture of forum' aspect of this ( though its interesting' but how this relates to consent in how we deal with people. Particularly in this area, where consent is referred to a lot in itself....I think that's also why I am interested in this line of where consent begins and ends in appropriacy. The examination of 'consent' to me as a person and its importance in my life, outside of sexual remit, and by gaining appreciation of where that line is for others to see how true the song others sing would sound for me.

I'm honestly a little confused by this thread. I've followed along and I can't keep a focus on any one thing. So I've been pondering it and at this point I don't know that I have anything valuable to add. I can relay an example of a weird boundary that I have that gets crossed regularly, make of it what you will.

Society (where I live) deems that hugging is an appropriate action to take when meeting someone. It's used as a hello, goodbye, comfort, intimacy, and is something people do regularly. Having grown up surrounded by people that do this, you would think that it was something I could just do naturally.

The truth is, I don't like it. I don't enjoy being touched like that and I don't really want to touch other people beyond a handshake if it can be helped. In some cases it's assumed that because I am a woman, I am to be hugged (first time meetings). I much prefer the "manly" handshake. When people come in for the hug, I can't appear rude and back out (I've inadvertently offended people in the past). I see it coming in slow motion and every single time I cringe inwardly. I try to be the first to offer my hand as a signal that a handshake is fine. Sometimes it works and sometimes my hand is brushed aside and I'm brought in for a very enthusiastic hug. Again, I have to try not to grimace.

Smile MeekMe, they're just completely invading your personal space.

With family (his not mine, we don't really hug in mine), I'm at their mercy if they're huggy people. With friends (people that know me well) they understand that hugging is something I don't enjoy. So usually permission is asked before hugging me. If they ask, I usually allow it despite how much I'd really like to just say "no" sometimes. In one case my disdain for hugging is known and actively ignored.

Are they violating my consent? It's just an innocent hug, so what's the big deal? In some cases I do give my consent to be touched like that. In most cases it's just assumed that I consent to it. No one (besides certain friends) will ever ask if it's ok to hug me. It is just something people do and something I reluctantly participate in. If asked I would try to opt out, but at this point societal views say that I'm the weirdo and that it's a bad thing if I don't hug people. On the other hand, if I said "no" and they still hug me, they're not considered bad people. It's no big deal because everyone hugs, right? Hugging is the social norm, I hug people to please them, not me.

This relates to how I deal with intimate situations as well. I'm likely not going to say "no" to someone I want to please. This is incredibly important and means I need to ensure the person I'm with is compatible and has my best interests in mind.

I suppose this falls into the blurry boundary lines. Is this anything like what you were wondering about, Elle?