This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| Sun 5 Dec 10, 1:35 AM successfu1 5 yrs  |
Before I start this thread, please can I ask that we play nice and dont shoot the messenger... I had a debate a while ago and the notion was proposed that gullibility or blind addiction (to a person or belief) were sufficient grounds for a person to have given their informed consent. This theory was rather in line with the notion that once initial consent was proffered that the 'foot in door' approach applies and events thereafter are consenting. Before everyone jumps about flaming me, that's not a view I subscribe to. I've been too active in Poly communities for too long not to have vestages of SSC, RACK and 'ongoing negotiation as relationships are key' beliefs. Hmm. Maybe. However, in light of the oft discussed inequality found in STARTING D/s relationships whereby a sub calls all the shots at first it's an interesting idea. My guess is that trust is the crux.. For this to work, the sub needs to make a speedy decsion on wether they trust this person before opening themselves with giving consent. No Domly trial runs or money-back-satisfaction guarentee allowed. But I may have misunderstood, what do you all think, any mileage in the idea that: addiction/gulibility = informed consent?! "Yes, but that's just not relevant.." | |
| 5 Dec 10, 7:39 AM Cinnamon_Tart UK(S), 8 yrs  |
Is there such a thing, do you think, as ill-informed consent? That would be my take on it. My hope. I can be hopelessly naive in some ways, believing the best of and in people. I start from a premise of trust and respect, and then reduce my belief and expectation accordingly if people behave in ways which are unacceptable to me. So, naive trust and consent, i am familiar with. And addiction is an interesting concept in Ds terms. I certainly feel addicted sometimes, to my need for certain things, or indeed people. And, again, time and experience educate me properly. So i can see the wood for the trees. And then make a much sounder call about how informed my consent truly is. And whether i wish to continue.
Hole Parity! | |
| 5 Dec 10, 7:58 AM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I think subs are a bit silly if they make instant decisions because they know if say he's married or has never been faithful to anyone in his life or has a string of convinctions or drug addiction or is pretending he has a job and doesn't etc etc. It is much wiser to learn about someone gradually and have the chance to see if their conduct follows their words. Obviously some people fall in love at first sight etc and it does work but on the whole the old saying - fools rush in where angels fear to tread holds good. | |
| 5 Dec 10, 8:10 AM insanity_sane1 UK(NG), 18 mths  |
I would say i follow this trail of thought. Having been on the scene a few years now and having been burnt by falling hopelessly in love with the notion of being his sub, collared to him and doing what i thought was what a sub should do. (god i was niave. I know tread more carefully. Trust respect and strength of character now form the basis of anything i enter into, i like to know how a partners mind works, if i can i prefer to have seen them play with another, i ask others quietly without raising suspicion about people. Overly cautious maybe but i have found it keeps me safe. Is addiction an informed consent, most definately not. I love to read the porn blogs dirty perv that i am, in fact i am addicted to the writings of some people. Would i play with these people, some yes others no, but still i apply the same rules, my safety and trust in them come first not the lusting after the porn they write, that addiction could find me in a serious mess. "Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment." ~Buddha | |
| 5 Dec 10, 8:20 AM X_Gordon_X UK, 3 yrs |
In my view, based on my experiences of addiction, i see addiction and consent as mutually exclusive.To me, addiction negates any form of consent i have. I maybe be talking about addiction outwith D/S but i feel that to be defined as addiction it thus negates any form of consent. Further i do not see any difference in the power of a physical addiction over a psychological addiction, both remove any sort of consent. Also as a dominant i would feel uneasy if my submissive was addicted to D/S as i would be questioning her abilty to consent, make choices and express what was ultimatley good or bad for her psychologically. Addiction places total responsibility on the dominant and dependency by the submissive on the dominant to decide what is good and what is not good for the submissive. To such an extent that it becomes unhealthy, dangerous and open to abuse.
| |
| 5 Dec 10, 8:34 AM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
In research studies (which is where I think the term "informed consent" originated), the context of the giving of consent is regarded as very important. The study must be explained to the participant in detail in advance, making them especially aware of any risks involved, anything which may make them feel uncomfortable, what data will be collected, how it will be anonymised, how it will be used and disseminated, who the researcher is and how qualified, to whom they have a right of appeal etc. The participant signs a form to give their consent and the researcher has to sign to say they believe the participant understood the information given and has given their consent freely, without undue pressure. (So for instance if the participant has certain cognitive impairments, it may not be possible to obtain their informed consent and a different ethics process would apply). Participants generally have the freedom to opt out of the study at any point without suffering any penalty (such as loss of remuneration). BDSM consent processes are bound to be somewhat different. It might spoil the fun if the whole scene was explained in advance. And people like an element of surprise and the unexpected. I've ever come across addiction as a potential confounding factor in Informed Consent. I imagine if a researcher were working in circumstances where it might be an issue, then the notion of "free" consent might be subject to especial scrutiny. "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein) Edited 5 Dec 10, 8:39 AM by wonderer | |
| 5 Dec 10, 9:19 AM valiant1 UK(ST), 7 yrs |
I love the term "ill-informed consent". It seems to describe so much that happens in this life, from people entering credit agreements without understanding interest rates, to the election of governments based on the advice of newspapers. And certainly in BDSM some people I know have entered relationships based on self delusion about the Dom they wished for despite evidence their prospective partner was not "the one". So although I'm happy with the tirle of the website, I think RACK is probably a better objective. | |
| 5 Dec 10, 9:42 AM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs |
I suppose people have to stand aside and look at the person and if there are a load of red flags such as indicate he or she is married by lying about it or they are unreliable (if reliabilitiy matters to you) etc etc then steet clear. Obviously if you're submissive then a very dominant man will always be attractive just as if you're gay someone gay will be but that doesn't mean you have to jump in right away without taking time to see if someone is right and any man who requires immediately jumping in probably just wants quick sex not to get to you know you for a life time together. There is no rush if you've 30 years potentially ahead of you. There is a huge rush if next week he'll be on to sub number 2 and you'll be history. | |
| 5 Dec 10, 11:36 AM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by "addiction" in this context. It feels a bit like "they keep coming back so they must like it"? That's not genuine specific consent by any measure. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | |
| 5 Dec 10, 1:08 PM The_Perfect_Sadist UK(PO), 4 yrs |
Well, there's your problem, right there. There is more than one way to skin a cat but there is only one try per cat | |
| 5 Dec 10, 2:28 PM SnowdropExplodes UK(TN), 7 yrs |
The use of deception to obtain consent is certainly unethical and antithetical to the concept of informed consent. So that rules out gullibility as a basis for "informed" consent straight away. Misinformed consent is what that is! The terms "blind addiction to a person" and "blind addiction to a belief" are confusing. Obviously this is not talking about addiction in the classically recognised medical terminology. It looks more like attachment than addiction is the intended meaning (for example, the use of the concept of "addicted to a person" as used in the atrocious "Celestine Prophecy" novel/self-help book). To be honest, the use of "addiction" here seems to be an attempt to prejudice the question by implying that people who have a strong attachment to another are not mentally competent to make their own decisions. What is the significance of the term "blind" in the phrasing used? Is this "unable to see" (i.e. things are hidden from the person either by circumstance or design) or is it "unwilling to see" (i.e. people point things out but the "addicted" person refuses to see them)? If things are deliberately hidden then that goes back to the initial point that deception negates consent. (Of course, one can consent to being deceived - that is what every person who pays to watch a magician is doing!) On the other hand, attachment to the point of refusing to see the flaws or problems that another points out constitutes to my mind an active stance that gives determined consent. Furthermore, once the information has been imparted, it is informed consent - even if the person refuses to use or acknowledge that information. We are not in a position to judge the ways in which people use the information (or refuse to use it), until such time as that impacts on others. Finally, if "blind" means "unable to see because there are things hidden by circumstance", then that is just the same situation as anyone faces: we do not live in a world of perfect knowledge and everyone must make their best decisions with the information at their disposal: "informed consent" is relative, not absolute, because nobody is 100% informed and we can just get as close to that as possible on any given topic. If we think someone is blindly attaching hirself to a partner of whom we disapprove, on the basis of "refusing to see", then we can hope that zie will eventually change hir mind and see things our way, or that when the final revelation comes that we are there to cushion the fall. But I do not think it is appropriate to question hir ability to make hir own decisions and give informed consent, by talking of "addiction". |
