O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
| 13 Jul 10, 10:38 AM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs        |
Not so much misconstruing as obsessive. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||||||
| 14 Jul 10, 12:05 PM Tanos  UK(M), 14 yrs  |
Consensual non-consent (CNC) sounds like a contradiction, but as you say, submissives can consent in advance to being forced into things in the future. At the time when they only do something because they are forced (or restrained) then I would say they are not consenting in that moment. Hence "consensual non-consent." We need a term like this when distinguishing CNC from the many forms of ongoing submission in which consent can be withdrawn at any time and the whole thing will be stopped immediately. (Many of those non-CNC relationships are within the scope of possession too, and therefore part of O&P of course.) Regards, Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk | |||||||
| 14 Jul 10, 5:26 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
Ok. I raTher liked De's post. because c_b, within our rules, submits to anything agreed and agrees she has no right of refusal. Is that what you would describe as consensual non consent? Or is it only CNC if I tell her we are of to the pictures, she says no and I say -bugger that - we are going anyway? (for pictures read anything play, scene or not where she's unwilling, I have the power and I insist. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) Edited 16 Jul 10, 10:48 PM by Belasarius | |||||||
| 14 Jul 10, 5:47 PM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
To my mind consensual non-consent means "consenting to later doing things without consent being given". Depending on how you choose to parse that, you may take the view that it's CNC if you do something to your partner without asking them first, or it may only be CNC if they resist/refuse and you do it anyway. The question of willing submission to something sub doesn't personally want to do is - to my mind at least - separate. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | |||||||
| 15 Jul 10, 2:42 AM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
To *my* mind... it's the latter... and well put. With respect to De, the suggestion that a refusal simply requires more "training" rather misses the point... In a relationship where CNC is an accepted or, sometimes, inevitable, component, it is not difficult for a dominant to push deliberately beyond what he/she knows will be accepted... The mutual recognition of CNC, makes that *allowable*... whereas a denial... from either side... could quite easily let the same relationship fall into the pit of abuse... Which is why I think it's so important that it is at least recognised as a concept... at least for some of us... and not trivialised, denied or ignored. Cassie x *If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* | |||||||
| 15 Jul 10, 9:48 PM pinkylucy UK(M), 9 yrs   |
Hi Cassie, I'm sorry that my post made you feel uncomfortable. I don't remember the previous thread about this topic so I certainly wasn't responding to you personally. I understand what is meant by the term CNC, but have also been interested to read De's ideas that really this can all fall under an umbrella term of 'submission' if we consider what submission actually entails. It's also worth thinking about whether the words 'non-consent' could give the wrong impression when the issue of consent is so important in BDSM. From reading your posts here I relate strongly to your description of how submission works for you. I too often submitted to things my Dominant wanted but I didn't - from the every day and mundane of going to bed early, to the other extreme of forced sex with someone I really didn't want to have sex with at the time. My consent had been given within the broader structure of our relationship, even if I didn't want to do it at the time. The debate here is whether or not we need to refer to such things as consensual non consent, or whether under certain circumstances this is just what submission looks like. In fact, if actually this just does fall under the definition of submission. Isn't submission 'submitting to the will of another'? Is it relevant whether you want to do what the Dominant wants you to do or not? This is what I meant in the post that annoyed you. It was a moment of realisation when I thought ' the definition of submission would be a bit strange if it included a bit saying that you had to like what you were submitting to'! I am certainly not trying to belittle what submissives do. I have learned from experience it is a path that requires effort and thought and courage and strength. "Don't Dream It - Be It" - The Rocky Horror Show 1973 Edited 15 Jul 10, 9:49 PM by pinkylucy | |||||||
| 15 Jul 10, 11:40 PM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Hi pinklucy... no worries... your post really didn't make *me* feel uncomfortable. Personally, I just thought it was a little flippant in the circumstances
As I said in one of my previous posts, I don't actually disagree with that.
I take more issue with this... primarily because almost everything I think/do within the realms of "kink" would probably give "the wrong impression" to someone and I've quite frankly moved beyond trying to prove otherwise.
I think it IS relevant. Here's a question... not aimed at you directly... but hopefully also relevant... If you've consented to everything you do, how is it submission at all? Surely it comes down to, as you rightly pointed out (and I certainly don't disagree with your summary)... "doing things you really wanted to do all along anyway whilst putting an exciting label on it"... Does that mean that it's only true (with apologies!) submission when you're doing something you *don't* want to do? I don't have the answer to that. It's where I feel the rationale... the automatic defence... of "consent" begins to fail us... When I submit... it is because I am somehow compelled to... partly because of how I am... and partly down to the influence of those with whom I am involved... And I'm sorry if this is a dangerous idea, but it actually has very little to do with consent... The end result however... makes me happy... and fulfilled... Perhaps if we all stopped hiding behind the shield of consent... and if, when asked... "What makes what you do OK?" Instead of opting for the kneejerk response of "because I consent to it"... we actually answered (certainly in my case) more truthfully "because it makes me happy/fulfilled"... the complex issue of whether one can willing consent to x or y (especially without knowing what x or y IS in advance) would actually cease to exist... Or to put it another way... things happen to me... to which I do not (or cannot) consent... as it stands... if forced to explain that in terms of "consent", I can see no other way but to define that as consensual non-consent... however, I would FAR rather define it more simply as what works for me... what (ultimately... even if not necessarily at the time) makes me happy... fulfilled... Cassie x
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* Edited 15 Jul 10, 11:42 PM by just_cassie | |||||||
| 16 Jul 10, 10:20 PM pinkylucy UK(M), 9 yrs |
Hi Cassie,
These are fascinating points to think about and I think I could very much enjoy tangling myself up in knots over these kind of questions and definitions. I'm a bit of a pervert in that way! Hmmm, on the first question 'if you've consented to everything you do, how is it submission at all?' I would say that the issue is that consent has been given *to submit*. There are many styles of this. Some people consent to submit to certain things that fall way within their comfort zones. Others submit within broader boundaries and some give a blanket consent of submission where by the submissive ceases to set her/his own limits and trusts their Dominant to make those decisions instead. I've done the whole spectrum. It was the first style I had in mind when I thought of doing exactly what you want whilst putting a sexy label on it. Of course, you are right that really this describes all forms of submission as we are all doing what we want to do at the bottom line, even if what we want is to be made to do things we don't want to do!!
I can see that the starting point for you does not feel like the point at which you give consent. There are important things happening before that even comes into play. I understand what you mean I think. I wasn't looking for a 24/7 D/s relationship. I drifted into one because of my response to one particular person who seemed to carry me deeper and deeper into a desire for submission. It felt unstoppable. It didn't begin with a conscious thought of consent. However, consent was still crucial. It was clear at every stage that I went deeper willingly, through choice. I gave my consent even if I didn't formally stand before her and say so on every issue.
This bit is so important and to me sums up why we must maintain a focus on consent. If being submissive makes you happy and fulfilled then of course it is something that you would seek and choose. That positive choice is where consent comes in I believe. Consent is just saying 'yes, I want to do this, it works for me'. Some people are unfortunately drawn towards relationships where by they end up submissive to the will of another but it is *not* positive. Or they find themselves in those situations quite unwillingly. I find 'consent' a simple and concrete way to distinguish between the negative and destructive submission within an abusive relationship and the positive and welcomed submission of a D/s relationship. It just says 'I chose this. I want it.'
We are definitely trying to describe the same feeling here. I would frequently get asked by open minded yet bemused friends 'but why do you do it? If it hurts and you don't like being punished and you don't want to do some of these things, why?' I would answer very much as you describe, that it made me happy, and that even in the moments where I didn't feel happy about the immediate situation I was happy to be in that style of relationship. A bit like being happy that you are married even if you really get on each others nerves sometimes! I still don't feel any need to define those times when I didn't want to do what was asked of me, as in any way non consensual. I had consented (or chosen to because it made me happy if you prefer) to submit to my partner's will. Inevitably, fairly often her will did not match mine in the immediate moment. The immediate moment however is not the big picture, and in the big picture we had both consented to (chosen) to live in a D/s framework, so I wasn't doing anything I hadn't agreed to do and ultimately I *was* doing what I wanted to do. I am quite happy to say 'sometimes I really didn't want to do what was being asked of me. Sometimes I had to be forced or threatened. Sometimes I did it begrudgingly.' But I know I had consented. It sounds quite exciting in a way to pretend I hadn't and I wonder if that is some of the attraction of CNC. It does feel thrilling to think that I was actually made to do things I hadn't consented to. I worked hard to own my submission and my choice to submit though. I struggled with that and fought against it, but it was true. I *had* consented to submit - even when I felt like I didn't want to. Reading this back, I'm getting the feeling that you might be talking about consent more in relation to specific things that may be asked of you or done to you. I'm thinking of consent in terms of consenting to a particular dynamic. Within that there may be separate issues of consent (for example when there are hard limits). Once you enter territory where you no longer control your own limits though there is, as I see it, only consent to submit. The rest is in your Dominant's hands. I do not believe submission is more 'true' (wince) when doing something you don't want to do. However, I do believe it is a good reminder and re-enforcer about submission. Submitting to things you love feels wonderful but if you love something you are likely to have done that anyway, submissive or not. (After all, you can be a Dominant and instruct someone to tie you up and beat you if that is something you enjoy!) When your Dominant instructs you to do something you don't want to do and you do it anyway then you cannot help but *feel* your submission. There was always a deep glowing satisfaction to knowing I had overcome my own personal desires and instead submitted as I had chosen to do. "Don't Dream It - Be It" - The Rocky Horror Show 1973 | |||||||
| 17 Jul 10, 10:24 AM Degenerate UK(M), 5 yrs  |
I understand people's explanations I think and thanks so much for them, but I still am not understanding the need to use this confusing concept to describe force as used within full time dominance, or O and P - which us all people seem to be describing? This is going to sound a bit simplistic, but for me, once a submissive bas consented to a dynamic in which they submit to the will of the dominant including by encouragement or force.. via O and P maybe.. the consent has been given. No further consent is needed. The only issue for me might be withdrawal of consent or a need to stop which I would be hoping to notice the latter before the former became necessary. I might consult my submissive's opinion on things, or ask them how they are likely to react, eg to something difficult or something new.. but I see no need to ask for their consent again when using force the same as I don;t ask for their consent again asking for coffee.. so why do we pick out the one most hard to understand, hard to do part which includes force to raise the issue and call it consensually non-consensual. how can it be non consensual when this dynamic has been consented to? In a literal sense it just seems incorrect.
I genuinely still fail to understand why this term is needed when other words which are clearer can be used. I don't believe we're devoid of equivalent language, but am happy to stand corrected if someone can get this through my thick skull why this is a separate concept not covered I agree with you Tanos we need to differentiate between doing as one pleases and submitting to the will of another including by force, but isn't it covered in O&P already by the fact that property needs not to consent... but humans need to give their consent to be property in the first place? hence a need to keep consent as our solid bottom line? Just ion case anyone isn't sure about this yes I do use force, I do expect submissives to submit to my will, not expect me to act out theirs.. Ihave explored fair depths of this concept too, right up to my own edges.. I just would never do what I would consider to be confuse the concept of consent by using this language to describe it. Or over simplify it by giving it an anachronism. It may be good to have words to describe a particular situation (for me, submission including consensual force covers it, as that is what has been consented to..) - but how does this help new people understand the concepts we are using when using this term outside private space and how does it help submissives in particular protect from and note the difference between real abuse (which often involves power and control tactics completely non consensually, invisibly) and what we do? For me it's not about outsiders understanding so much as insiders understanding and the concept of informed consent to the dynamic itself is the one crucial thing we can fall back on to mark ourselves as different.. )regardless of whether one requires individual consent to each activity - which would just be impractical) manipulative because it's what's desired on both sides, not against someone's will or without their knowledge. Entered into with full knowledge, or at least as full as possible in advance. For me the difference is consent so I just don't understand what we gain from this term which is covered within th concept of consensual force being part of full time submission in some relationships,. given there are plenty of other less confusing and worrying ways to explain it fully? or are there? Am I still missing something? For me non consent is a massive concept which really wouldn't do us any favours to be adopted into consensual relationships as a concept when we know consent has been given for this style of relationship, if not each activity. i do think it gives a bad and wrongful impression.. I see non consent as the antithesis of what we do which is why i am trying to understand. De Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk Edited 17 Jul 10, 10:29 AM by Degenerate | |||||||
| 26 Jul 10, 12:48 PM Degenerate UK(M), 5 yrs |
Just wanted to add to the thread this. Thanks Tanos, as your posts here explained something important I didn't realise ie - that some O&P relationships may still have safewords and practice within the submissives personal limits (as opposed to doing whatever the dominant decides is ok). This means I see more need to differentiate between those kind of relationships as I do one but not the other. I'm still not brilliantly keen on the choice of language but I am understanding better why it does work as a description - to be honest current discussions on the wider forums have made me wonder if it is just useful as a quick way to describe something which people may or may not understand regardless of how we describe it. Maybe it doesnt matter if one term is more likely to get people's backs up or cry 'it's abuse' given the widespread confusion about what it is anyway. Is there a good document anywhere which explains what CNC is (or consensual force, or however else we might describe it)? If not - maybe one of the groups could make one? De Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk |
as I am genuinely asking here and if it's the only way to describe the concept I will take it on myself. 