This thread is a continuation of "Non consensual consensuality"
This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| Sat 24 Jul 10, 8:36 AM mcncirce  UK(BH), 9 yrs |
Ok I've sorted it! All this red-non-red ball and red-blue-ball was silly. We are used to the phrase
Michelle Trussed UK ~****~ Thoughts on BDSM | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 8:49 AM Robert16 UK(OX), 2 yrs  |
Thats extremely intrigueing Michelle, especially this early on a Saturday morning, but somehow I feel I'm missing something vital. What's all this ball colour business? Never drive faster than your angels can fly | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 9:23 AM hollythedolly UK(NN), 2 yrs   |
read the last 3 episodes I found war and peace and the bloody prelude easier and I hated the prelude. Another one bites the dust. | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 10:59 AM lapetitemort55 UK(E), 4 yrs |
Let me see if I have got this the blue ball is red ? what Im wondering is does it like being blue ? is it really secretly wanting to be red ? I wonder how it feels about the whole business ? what are snooker balls made out of anyway ? The absence of apostrophes is to get you .. yes .. it is. Grating yet ? | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 12:48 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs      |
I begin to think c_b and I don't do consensual non consent. Up til now, at least, where she has given her submission, she submits - and where she hasn't, we are still negotiating. One thing that strikes me from the posts up to now is that writers (both dom and sub) have expressed the argument, mostly, from the submissive's perspective. So, why does a dominant desire consensual non-consent? Would this allow them to get as close to a genuine 'no' as possible? If it is achievable , real non-consent might be the nirvana they seek but in this way it keeps things the right side of abuse - for both parties, I hasten to add. Is CNC the 'next best thing'? Please note this not judgemental or critical - we both see the attraction of this as an idea - but a genuine question in order to better understand people's views. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) Edited 26 Jul 10, 10:48 AM by Belasarius | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 1:20 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
Apologies if I'm repeating (I'm not reading four full threads ).
I think a better term than "consensual non-consent" is "blanket consent" or "implied consent". That's what I think people are talking about - you're saying that it's okay to do a range of activities without explicitly saying yes, and it can be assumed you're consenting (unless you explicitly say no or safe word). "Consensual non-consent" doesn't describe this as well, it has awkward connotations of linking BDSM with non-consensual acts, plus the term is an oxymoron. I agree with Degenerate - such behaviour isn't non-consensual at all - the person *is* at the end of the day consenting. Even if you're doing something you don't like, you're still consenting to do something you don't like. I'd argue that even in vanilla relationships, people do this. If you put your hands on a stranger in certain places, you'd be committing assault, but people do this in relationships without asking for permission. If you're sleeping with someone you've just met, you have to be careful to judge consent explicitly - "She didn't say No" is not a defence to rape, and rightly so. But within a relationship, whilst it must of course still be consensual, it's far easier for people to judge this without explicit communication. Of course it's taken far further in BDSM, and in particular being done in a one-sided manner. Imagine if we had a case that really involved non-consent - a submissive posted to the boards, saying they'd been forced to have sex, they'd said no (or safeworded), and they really meant it. I would hope that the response would be that this was rape, and such abuse is not consensual, and not what BDSM is about. I would be horrified if the responses were "Well it doesn't matter that you didn't consent, because you'd previously agreed to a consensual non-consensual relationship"... Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 24 Jul 10, 1:21 PM by emark | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 1:32 PM Sirebel UK, 5 yrs  |
I haven't read the previous three threads but I did mean to reply to De's post. She describes CNC perfectly for me as total submission or Total Power Exchange if you prefer. Poupee and I have an interesting relationship that is complicated by her strong willed independent nature. She submits to me totally but there is always negotiation before and discussion after sessions. We have recently been playing more with total power exchange as an underlying theme. Interestingly enough, her favourite phrase at the moment is "This is entirely for your pleasure, not mine" which clearly lets me know that it is a CNC situation. This is the essence of CNC for me, being able to do things that are entirely for my pleasure and she submits to my will because she wants me to have that pleasure no matter how much she doesn't want to do it. No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. Abraham Lincoln | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 1:48 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
I don't think the analogy works (I don't think anyone would say it's unethical for two people to disagree, but most people would say that raping someone is unethical), but the second phrase in itself is an interesting idea. But is it really a well defined statement? Surely, if you state that a person has a right to have sex with you, isn't that just another way of saying you're consenting (even if you would rather not have sex, that's not what we're asking - the issue is whether you ultimately consented).
Consider another example: someone walks onto your garden, potentially an act of trespass. The policeman turns up. You say "Oh, he has the right to do that". Surely the policeman would interpret that as saying he has the right of access to your land, so it isn't trespass. But if you said that the person was guilty of trespass and simultaneously had a right to do it - well the policeman would probably (rightly) get confused and tell you to stop making contradictions and make your mind up If you mean more broadly - that you never consented, but that a person has the right to break the law: this is perhaps similar to rape victims who don't want to press charges etc. In those cases, it is still possible for the state to prosecute, and I would argue rightly so: if a dominant is *really* going around raping his submissives, when they explicitly don't consent, he is still a danger to others, even if the current victim holds a belief that he has a right to rape people. (But if instead you respond and say, he's not a danger to society, he only did it because you allowed him - well, we're back to the case of it really being consensual after all, and not rape.) Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 24 Jul 10, 1:49 PM by emark | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 2:03 PM Degenerate UK(M), 5 yrs  |
Hiya Belsarius. I am three and a half threads behind the discussion so apologies if I am repeating anything. For me personally, no it's not connected to the above, I don't have a particular fantasy about using force against someone.. it's about keeping the focus on my whims and decisions, with someone who desires this kind of relationship also. A fun reason for using real force (probably applies to high drama scenes): very challenging situations can provide a very exciting way of being reminded of what submitting to someone completely could involve. It's a show of power. One of the things which enchants some people who enjoy that kind of play is being shown that a dominant can dangle them over the pit of hell by their hair OR hand them a better fantasy than they could possibly create alone.. and that we have that power to do or not.
A very serious D/s reason (applies to the less exciting day to day stuff): For me someone submitting is not about me playing out their fantasy life as they craft it, it is about me having them do as I please so I can have my fantasy life. I do on a very fundamental level desire a submissive to bend to my will, because I wish it. If there is no bending, it is service and deferential yes, someone may have lower status in realistic terms, and I might have control of them.. but I feel their submission best when they can go against their own instinct and desires and (or learn to) allow my instinct to become their action. To gain reward from the fun they have when I am pleased by and proud of them, rather than me only having the domain of going straight to their menu for joint things we enjoy, which feels more like topping for me, even though this isn't just topping necessarily. I love doing things which drive people wild, things they love.. but with a submissive, I want to do those things because I enjoy it, not because it is expected of me.. because their enjoyment can be so wonderful.. when it is gained *without expectation* I expect this to be earned.. and the structure of including elements which are not of their enjoyment in the act itself - such as maybe having someone who finds tea service no fun provide service as protocol - their pleasure should come from pleasing me.. this structure provides extra incentive to please me and reminds them of their position. If I am not pleased and if i do not feel a person can really submit, do as I please, be intricately mindful of my protocols, quirks, preferences and methods.. but really are in it just to get off in a more frivolous way.. I can't be bothered to put in the work of analysing, charming, enchanting, learning to operate and then enslaving someone. Not a chance. I want - possibly need - the person to be drawing their pleasure from the submission first and foremost, not only from control by their preferred method. I've been willing to train the capacity in to an interesting enough person. De
Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 2:21 PM Degenerate UK(M), 5 yrs |
yes I feel similarly. I feel a bit odd saying this to people who aren't my submissive, in which context this feels like a completely obvious / normal / simple thing to say: Often - interesting as it is from an information collation perspective - I don't really care whether the submissive wishes to do as I please or not when it comes to a particular activity, as long as they efficiently do as asked/expected, or can be forced to without needing to renegotiate the relationship completely, in which case it loses its charm! ie as long as this is within the person's relationship's boundaries / tolerance). I don't use that kind of technique on people I don't know really well either.
It goes both ways.. I'm quite kind you know.. (De tries not to think about how many people are spraying their drink over the screen in horror right now) That is the kind of informed consensual adult relationship I am in, if I have a submissive, so it's fair play.. maybe even necessary sometimes for their training.
I wonder if part of my dislike of the wording of consensual non consent is just that I am affronted by the implication that I should require any permission from a possession It's me who gives permission in that kind of relationship once the boundaries are set (and as developed).
Bear in mind for me this would be taking place within a responsible caring D/s relationship in which the submissive's fallout and need for other kinds of assurances and love is my responsibility and taken very seriously (After all.. they'd be no use to me before long otherwise . from what I remember anyway. this is all theory now so possibly what I have to say isn't so relevant now. De Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk Edited 24 Jul 10, 2:24 PM by Degenerate | |||
| 24 Jul 10, 2:35 PM Thistle US, 4 yrs |
And then the person tells the policeman that he is your landlord. He has a perfect right to be in the garden, because he owns it. love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon |
