This topic is now full - if you want to reply, please make a new post on the board itself.
This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| 20 Jul 10, 1:10 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs   |
a) leave them in the cage b) cut off their arm c) ask on IC just enumerating the options here.... And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 1:24 PM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Umm... as far as CNC is concerned, personally I certainly wouldn't expect him to... And to me, that's the point... so many people seem to see CNC as complicated, some kind of mind game... when it's actually quite the opposite. The term may be confusing, contradictory even... although I still think it's the best anyone's come up with so far... but what it's trying to describe, is actually very simple... and real. Cassie x
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 1:25 PM AstronautMikeDexter UK(E), 2 yrs |
The reality is likely that no judgement call would be necassary. Most people would have the wherewithal and basic human empathy to work out when a fundamental renegotiation of the relationship is being requested. --- | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 1:59 PM Thistle US, 4 yrs |
I think the cage example is a good one because it cleanly represents a situation in which the submissive is powerless to do anything except protest. She doesn't want to be in the cage and she makes that very clear. Her knees hurt. Her back hurts. She's not in the mood to be submissive today. She had plans that really matter to her. She doesn't want to be in the cage. Period. And she can't get out of it. The dominant holds 100% of the power. Why, given that scenario, would a fundamental renegotiation of the relationship be necessary? Why wouldn't the dominant be within his ethical and relationship rights, as originally negotiated, to simply refuse to allow her out of the cage. And, in fact, to extend the time she must stay in there, because she's complaining so much? Because her distress is real? Without meaning any disrespect to people who do not enter such relationships, so what? She's not in danger. She's not being fundamentally harmed. She's a little uncomfortable and she wants to be somewhere else. Again, so what? Assume I'm the woman in that cage. I know, with certainty that I agreed to this potential scenario when I agreed at some point in the relationship that I don't have the right to say "no" to my dominant. But now, here I am regretting that decision, because I don't want to be here. And here he is keeping me here. Not hurting me. Not abusing me in any active sense of the word (please note, I am trying to keep legal definitions out of this, because I think we all have to acknowledge that whether we consent or not, much of what we do isn't legal.) What he's doing is he's forcing me to abide by my agreement with him. He's exerting the right I told him he has. He's taking what I said I wanted to give him. I'm still stuck in that cage, still unhappy about it. I still want out of it. But I can't just conveniently forget that I told him at some point that I agree not to be allowed to refuse him. I know that he's just holding me to my word. At some point, I wanted this. And maybe the fantasy of it was far more attractive than the reality and maybe I shouldn't be in a relationship such as this one. Or maybe, just maybe, I'm a self-aware woman and maybe I know and accept that I did want just this, or something like this, when I agreed to the relationship. Maybe I'm attracted to the fact that his empathy for me doesn't begin and end within the parameters of this little situation. Maybe his empathy for me is broad enough that he's aware that on some level that apparently a lot of other people can't understand, I need my own will to be rendered meaningless. I don't think any one of us is denying that consent is present in the overall structure of the relationship. Nor are we denying that legally, we get to be prats about it and make promises we can't or won't keep. What we are saying is that, when faced with the reality of what could happen, consent at the moment is a moving target. But consent to ignore our complaints, fears, dislike, discomfort and unwillingness in the actual moment is always present. We're not saying that we believe that we are incapable of saying no. We are saying that we accept that we might say no and that the dominant might not accept that answer. If you think that doesn't happen in real life, and since the matter of law seems to be so important, I'd like to suggest that you go out and commit a crime in front of a camera or a police officer. Then, when you are arrested and put in a jail cell (that thing that is kind of like a cage) please try telling them that you don't consent to what is happening to you and you'd like to go home now. Or voluntarily join the military service and then, when you are on the battlefield, lay down your gun and walk away and try to go home. I don't think anyone would disagree that there are situations in life where consent is negligible. What you are disagreeing to, is that some of us have chosen to accept just such a situation in our personal relationships and we are content to be compelled by it just as firmly as we would be compelled by that other law imposed by the state. It seems you'll all acknowledge that we are born into bondage to the law of the land, but you refuse to accept we could adapt to an other law of our own choosing.
love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 2:06 PM Original_Rebel UK(CT), 10 yrs |
I see a whole new thread in that one 
| ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 3:02 PM Incandescence UK, 3 yrs |
I think the term is confusing simply because it is contradictory. As I said at the beginning of the original thread, which seems so long ago, it's the term that makes it so difficult for me to get my head round. And actually having read these threads, I do have a much clearer idea of how the term is being used and what it's attempting to describe ... but that greater understanding only makes me more sure that what consensual non-consent actually is is just consensual force, which is what I suggested in the OP of the first thread (and actually what De suggested in her OP of the original thread in the O&P group). I'm sorry if I seem like a dog with a bone with this but I really am genuinely struggling to understand how this can be anything other than consensual.
Striving to better, oft we mar what's well. ~William Shakespeare, King Lear, 1605 Edited 20 Jul 10, 3:03 PM by Incandescence | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 3:02 PM AstronautMikeDexter UK(E), 2 yrs |
--- | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 3:21 PM Thistle US, 4 yrs |
I realized after I wrote what I did that it seemed as if I was directing that at you personally. I meant it rather more broadly. My apologies if I seemed to be demonizing your personal responses. That was not my intent.
love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 3:29 PM AstronautMikeDexter UK(E), 2 yrs |
No, no, not at all. To be honest I don't think anyone is actually in any disagreement here. It is, like most internet arguments almost entirely semantic. All I'm really saying is that the NC component of the phrase CNC is redundant as far as I can tell. That said CNC is a good shorthand for a particular style of relationship. --- Edited 20 Jul 10, 3:31 PM by AstronautMikeDexter | ||||
| 20 Jul 10, 3:37 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
The NC bit differentiates from situations where there is an agreed safe-word/exit strategy/renegotiation opportunity. Whether or not it literally means non-consensual, seems to some thing of an irrelevant exercise in semantics - but there is a clear distinction between its presence and absence IMHO. And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! |
