CNC vs POBSC (79)

Is there, in fact, any difference at all?

If you consent to non-consensual acts doesn't the very act of consenting to them negate the fact that they are non-consensual?

Is it just a total oxymoron, or am I missing something, or are people just making this shit up as they go along?

Be the change you want to see in the world. - Gandhi.
He said that any love is good love. So I took what I could get. - Randy Bachman

Did you read any of the threads about this carefully before posting that?

:T:

www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
The Warehouse: pony play etc, Sat 7 Apr 2012, Exodus, Birmingham

My understanding of consentual non consent is (for example): "There are things that I would really rather you didn't do to me but I consent to allowing you to do this to me should you so choose to."

I can appreciate that there might be grey areas to this though in the sense that either way, there is an element of genuine consent no matter what is being done.

Maybe consentual non consent deals more with having limits pushed or even broken. For example, I once gave someone a list of my hard limits before playing and a few of them were broken. I consider this to be consentual non consent because there were times when I wanted to genuinely get outta the persons house. I did have opportunities to do this but I chose not to so in this respect, I guess I consented to having things done to me that I genuinely did not want to have done to me just for the thrill of it. Twas very hot

Tis an interesting thing to think about.

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice xx

Edited 19 Jan 12, 3:34 PM by totallycoverme

Consent = "Hey, fancy a spanking?" "Yeah, that'd be cool" *spanks*

Non consent = "Hey fancy a spanking?" "Nope" *spanks*

Consensual non-consent = "Hey fancy a spanking?" "Nope" "Well, you entered into this set up saying i could do this to you whenever i wanted, so I'm gonna do it anyhoo" *spanks*

See?

x

Now where were we? Ah, yes - abject humiliation!
@Modified_Bodies
@O_and_P
@LGB_Forum

I really don't think it's worth arguing over though. If everyone knows what they want in a relationship and set it up like that then it's fine.

Eg I've never been in a relationship when I might say no to sex.

Yet in a sense I always can say no as that's English law whether we've agreed to continuous consent or not, so that first sentence of mine is a load of rubbish really.

Now where were we? Ah, yes - abject humiliation!
@Modified_Bodies
@O_and_P
@LGB_Forum

If you dont recognise the difference then I suggest you stick to plain old consent.

My own experiences to do with the subject include the following. A sub can consent to be whipped until she passes out. During the event itself the sub will most likely (read definatly) will try and remove consent and beg, plead and generally say anything to stop the process including every known safe word on the planet. If you listen to her pleas you fail. Simple as that. What this type of sub wants is to be pushed past her own limits. Hence this sub has consented to non consensual activity.

A grey area indeed. But definatly an area wanting to be explored by more and more subs it seems.

The pleasure, I fear, will be all mine.
You cant help those that refuse to listen.

Edited 19 Jan 12, 3:48 PM by nastybstd

Good advice is goooooood

x

Now where were we? Ah, yes - abject humiliation!
@Modified_Bodies
@O_and_P
@LGB_Forum

I really am not comfortable with the idea that someone can do as they please and claim consent because their was a previous agreement. I'm happy for people to let subs think they will do as they please so that the sub gains the pleasure of handing over that power and the sensation of being totally dominated. I am not at all happy with the idea that a Dom/Domme actually believes in their own head that they have been given carte blanche and can really claim that consent has been given.

Consent to me is a fact, when it is withdrawn, no matter what has been previously agreed the act becomes non-consensual.

As a final thought to the OP I think in relationships and life we all make up shit as we go along.

It depends on which law your talking about. It is a defence for, say, rape, if the accused has reasonable grounds to believe consent was present, so a victim saying (in writing to make it more compelling) "I give consent, but later on, though I may appear to withdraw consent, I will not really be withdrawing consent, merely acting, and the original consent should stand because I wish to experience something that approximates rape", is ambiguous, and would sound somewhat contrary to a jury (muddying the 'beyond reasonable doubt' whatnot). Personally I would think the accused would have reasonable grounds to believe there was consent present.

Other offences presumably have their own specific relationship between consent, belief in consent, mens whatever, and indeed whether consent is a defence at all. Assault can't be consented to (AFAIK) but god knows what happens with say, kidnapping and the like.

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 19 Jan 12, 5:09 PM by Attitude_Adjuster