This thread is a continuation of "Non consensual consensuality"
This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| 25 Jul 10, 4:36 PM NotTheOne UK(TA), 2 yrs  |
Indeed, how dare any dominant state it doesnt need to be all about the subs wants/needs I stared into the abyss, the abyss stared into me. It blinked first. | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 5:30 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
Yes, that was my only point on the thread part III - that it's a fiction. I'm reading a book on NOrth Korea. They go in for a lot of that - we are the best fed nation on earth etc. CNC is consent, full stop but of course people can call things anything they like. Even when you're forced down if you have headache and say you really don't want sex if you're in a relationship where you've consented to sex etc or whatever he chooses to do within reason then you're consenting. I don't see where non consent comes into it. However at any point in law no can mean no so people had better trust each other before they do these kinds of things. The interesting bit is when you move from the Ds consensual relationship to being in an abusive relationship unable to leave it for various reasons which of course most of us hopes never happens. I haven't really had that except a very few times with my ex husband and then it was absolutely clear what was what. | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 8:53 PM Tanos  UK(M), 14 yrs    |
You're wrong, full stop. See how pointless that kind of statement is? Life if more complicated than "full stop" as people have taken the time to explain to you over four threads. Tanos www.tanos.org.uk | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 9:20 PM PapaSmurf UK(CF), 22 mths |
Hate to overrule you there old son, but that's apples to oranges. "CNC is consent, full stop" is a semantically valid assertion of fact, albeit stated from one viewpoint. "You're wrong, full stop" is an assertion of opinion regarding the validity of another's opinion or belief, with the exact content left to interpretation of context. Part of the problem is the use of what appears to be an oxymoronic phrase, which can only serve to muddy the waters. Make it more syntactically clear by agreeing on a synonym of "consent" with which to replace one of the "consent"s in the term, and you'll escape ambiguity regarding which "consent" someone refers to when they use the word. Call it "suspension of autonomy", call it "negotiated abeyance of rights" - hell, as long as all participants understand what is being talked about, call it "condition S", but this argument over the semantics of a concept represented by a phrase that is at very best semantically null is akin to watching a roomful of dogs chasing their tails. | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 9:31 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
No, "CNC is consent, full stop" is a gross over simplification, which is invalid as it omits the whole point of CNC.
Try reading what people living in CNC relationships or doing CNC scenes say about what really happens and it's not at all hard to understand. "Consensual sadism" sounds oxymoronic to many ignorant vanillas too, until they hear about masochists. Tanos | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 9:47 PM Thistle US, 4 yrs |
I don't think the argument is actually over the semantics. I think the argument is over degree. And perception. I think the argument is about vanilla ideals that ought to be irrelevant in this discussion. I think the argument is about a state of mind. And whether that state of mind exists. There are countless, deliberate oxymorons in literature. They serve to illustrate various ideas. More particularly, they serve to illustrate emotional conflict. The very nature of CNC resides in the acceptance that it is a contradiction. A paradox. Removing that value from it to make it more semantically pleasing would be absurd. I'm not in love with the particular term. But I think it does serve to illustrate a valid concept. And I think it's that concept which has been debated through these four threads. ETA: When I first saw the term, it sang to me. Because it describes what I was seeking to define so very precisely. love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon Edited 25 Jul 10, 9:52 PM by Thistle | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 10:12 PM DrTaps AQ, 10 yrs |
I struggle with the concept of consensual non-consent, if only because it is a linguistic contradiction. But I hope I see what it is driving it at. I liked Mia's description several threads ago about wearing her collar in different situations and empathised with that. And Degenerate's description of what she looks for in the consent of a submissive, that is to do what she wants for her not what the sub wants. Every sub should want their Dom/mes pleasure and find their own in that. Whatever happens, as a sub, I know I have a safe word, not easily used in error by me (and I hate using it), and I know I am in the hands of someone I trust implicitly to not do me serious physical or mental harm. So I therefore consent but do not know at the outset what I am consenting to. And we both know that. And I may (and perhaps hope to) be challenged on my boundaries of consent. The back of my head always knows that I can press the big red button but the front of my head never wants to do that. Sometimes the journey is best when the road and the destination are completely unknown. Is that CNC or is it consensual consent to things I haven't necessarily consented to? | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 10:21 PM PapaSmurf UK(CF), 22 mths |
Does it really? Attribute to it the meaning which I believe was intended, which was "CNC is consent, to the extent that consent is the single factor separating acts under CNC from abuse, violence and rape" and it is a valid point. Cut a cross-section through any complex issue and you can boil it down to a simple statement. Where you feel the simple statement falls down is that it does not include the complexities inherent in the issue as a whole, which naturally it cannot do. Conversely we have "CNC is whatever power-exchange boundaries are agreed between you and your partner, within the context of your pay" is an equally valid assertion of fact, but this time so broad as to be useless to anyone else's understanding. I meant what I said about using an oxymoronic term; we're discussing a very ambiguous and emotive subject through the medium of written English, a language well-known as being excellent for poetry and literature but bloody awful for symbolic logic. (Edited to close quote properly) Edited 25 Jul 10, 10:23 PM by PapaSmurf | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 10:34 PM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
In my opinion... no... that is not CNC... In CNC, there is no safeword. In CNC... NO *means* NO... but may not be taken into account. The fact that a genuine NO maybe be ignored... IS accepted by the submissive. So there is consent... and there isn't. Deal with it. Cassie x
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* | |||||||
| 25 Jul 10, 10:34 PM mcncirce UK(BH), 9 yrs |
CNC is an accepted concept in BDSM, especially in D/s, M/s relationships. So why are there so many attempts in these threads to refute it by drawing parallels with things in vanilla relationships, socially accepted norms and the law? We deviate from the norm and that is what adds the frisson to our way of life. Michelle Trussed UK ~****~ Thoughts on BDSM |
).
