Consensual Non-Consent (III) (95)

Yes, it's true. Women can even withdraw consent during sex, although I think if you've agreed to let someone start it's pretty bad to make them stop midway, but then being very sub I have a different mind set than some people on those issues.

So (a) any woman (or man) can leave a relationshp any time they like in the UK (b) any woman can stop even a spanking they consented to mid way either through an agreed safe word or if they have no safe words and she's said in advance she consent to it all simply by changing her mind. I imagine if you had in writing that she'd agreed to a D/s relationship it might help a bit if you were disputing later whether she'd consented or not but if the acts done are ones you cannot even consent to in law then it's not likely to help that you had a signed thing. Even statements like you go handgliding or paint balling at your own risk don't work as you can't exclude liabilty for death or personal injury in law no matter how many things you sign.

BUT if you're happy in a D/s relationship with someone you love and trust it doesn't really matter that theoretically and legally you have rights to stop anything any time. You just don't exercise or choose not to think about them.

(I haven't done the quotes right below) but this was where it was.

Belsarius "Attitude_Adjuster wrote: "ClassAct2005 wrote:

Secondly in law the sub in the UK can always change her mind so no amount of fantasy or internal D/s feelings can change taht fact."

This keeps on being asserted as an absolute, but I remain to be convinced that it is (of course anyone can change their mind...). Not letting someone off the bus between stops isn't kidnap "

Does this have any bearing:

"Rape, sexual assault and abuse are prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 • Under this law people must 'actively consent' to sex. This means saying yes or demonstrating that it's ok. Not saying 'no' does not mean that you consented • You cannot consent to sex if you are being threatened, coerced or forced into it • You can withdraw consent at any time, including after sex has started • The law considers vaginal, anal and oral rape, along with assault by penetration (for example by using fingers or an object), equally serious • The basic sentence for rape of an adult is five years. This may be higher; if, for example, a weapon or violence was used."

Found here:

www.eaves4women.co.uk/.../Sexual%20violence%20fa....

Edited to add search link as link to pdf appeared not to work:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=consent+w....

My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

Edited 21 Jul 10, 9:46 AM by Belasarius "

I didn't disagree with that. I responded

Lets do another example shall we?

A woman consents to 'rough sex', and asks that she be gagged so that if she tries to communicate her changed state of consent, he will not hear her plea.

During the act she changes her mind. He does not understand the audible gurgle she makes and continues.

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!

Edited 21 Jul 10, 10:00 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

I don't want the State defining my relationship for me.

love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon

thread 1

thread 2

I shall now don my invisibility cloak and lurk :-/

"Love is dead. It was acquired in a hostile takeover by Hallmark & Disney, homegenised, then sold off piece by piece." L Simpson

Though I find the legal proposition interesting for its own sake. From an ethical perspective, I can see nothing wrong in CNC, so long as boundaries are clear and understood (ie the usual SSC/RACK caveats).

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!

Edited 21 Jul 10, 10:13 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

On this one "A woman consents to 'rough sex', and asks that she be gagged so that if she tries to communicate her changed state of consent, he will not hear her plea. During the act she changes her mind. He does not understand the audible gurgle she makes and continues."

He wouldn't then break the law in my view unless what he did to her were something one cannot lawfully consent to (such as cutting off her leg, particularly bad other damage etc).

Of course if she isn't sure he knows how to play safely she's a bit silly to be gagged without agreeing some sign that she can drop something to indicate she's not happy.

I was disconcerted by the male sub on the other thread who had agreed no marks, saying his domme had had someone else beat him up so he had a black eye. That just sounds very unsexy and being beaten up without consent and unlawful but then I've never found the idea of black eyes sexy anyway.

Thank you. You can flux that scenario into the one which most people recognise as a CNC type arrangement.

yeah - if it happened.

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!

I know this draws the immediate ire of other women, but I'm not in favor of some of the permutations of rape laws in the US. For example, the law that says if both people are drunk and have consensual sex, the man has raped her. I also tend to disagree that it's rape if the woman has withdrawn her consent midway through sex. I'd rather see this considered on a case-by-case basis. Finally, I think there are more false claims of rape and sexual assault than women's rights groups will admit to. I'd be prepared to hand over my feminist card right now, except that I'm not a feminist.

As the law applies to BDSM, I suspect that my own opinions will again draw ire. I think that when I consensually enter a BDSM relationship, I must accept the responsibility for the venue in which I am playing. As a submissive I accept that I could be hurt, either through misunderstanding or deliberate intent. I'm not saying that it's okay. But I'm not going to seek legal remedy. I just feel that would be dishonorable to my own original intent.

Rather, I'm going to take my responsibility for my own welfare into my hands. I'm going to walk away, advise the "dominant" never to contact me again and be done with it. (Please note that I have not extended this into the separate and different possibility that the man won't leave me alone.)

So far as the State having a different opinion on what my rights and obligations are under the law, if they don't know about it, it didn't happen. Legal considerations are only theoretical unless someone plans on prosecuting.

Why is it that it's okay to disavow the possibility of non-consent in a consensual relationship on the foundation that it's only theoretical, yet uphold legal theory as an effective reality?

love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon

I largely agree with you, and it seems a lot of us are on the same wavelength but just taking the meaning of words of boundaries differently, or having different preferences in our play and relationships.

It sounds like your state of being challenged, and pushing your submission, are in a way a persistent form of consent regardless of how far you are taken. There would come a point for some subs where they're simply miserable, have lost all respect or trust for their partner, and are long overdue to go home. It sounds in your situation like you've built a lot of trust, in turn giving a lot of yourself to your Dom and perhaps have them take whatever they want from you. It sounds like all situations that your Dom creates will remain acceptable to you, even if they may or may not be considered extreme or demanding by some standards set by others, even if you may beg and kick and scream for it not to happen at the time. Perhaps that's thanks to the great judgement of your Dom to know what to take in a way that is a challenge to you. I've also been in situations where I've interpreted a partner saying "I wouldn't really want to do that" as an invitation for me to take that from them, take control and push them through something they don't want to do but somehow they'll enjoy it. But they may only push through that because of a unique relationship built with you.

But I see all of this as a deeper from of "please no (please yes)".

Your partner is also lucky, having the confidence and relationship within which to push as hard as is wanted.

This is such an interesting thread I'll try to read more replies now...

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch" - Jack Nicholson

HA saw you x

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch" - Jack Nicholson

It depends which box you open.

Oh god that game would be so much more interesting if you could either win "£75,000" or "rape". The banker's offers would certainly get more interesting as well...

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch" - Jack Nicholson