Consent Paradox?

[Deleted Member]

I realise that this is a controversial topic. However, I feel it is one of the most important and yet glossed over subjects for a number of reasons - people either feel consent is obvious or they feel it is a sinister thing to highlight the fact it can in fact be complex. But just avoiding the subject doesn't bury the fact there are numerous things I feel can be complex about consent. In recent years, feminists have approached the subject with the enthusiastic consent model - or maybe I shouldn't exclusively call them "feminists" but for the sake of shorthand, you get what I mean. And in BDSM this seems to be the largely accepted premise:

"it's not consensual unless you are enthusiastic about consenting"

And this has a number of advantages. It means that women pressured into "agreeing" to sexual activity for instance can't be considered to have enthusiastically agreed. It means that men who feign ignorance about boundaries can have their excuses stripped away as the only qualifying argument becomes a matter of whether she consented enthusiastically. But leaves me with a number of questions, for example about a dominant party who genuinely misunderstood a cue rather than maliciously wielding a weaponised excuse to deliberately push boundaries but I'm not really going to touch on that subject as I find it's a giant can of worms.

One of the questions has been about escorts for example and the answer I've received from the BDSM community has largely been that escorts can "enthusiastically" consent to something in the sense they may want *** for sex without necessarily being enthusiastic about the sex itself. Or asexual people who may have sex enthusiastically for the sake of strengthening a relationship bond rather than wanting the sex for it's own sake is another example. When it comes to heteronormative couples not working in the industry non-enthusiastic sex such as sex provided for the other partner but not so much for the other partner's own pleasure - when it comes to this subject, this kind of "vanilla" sex is generally frowned upon in the BDSM community unless the partners are in a committed relationship and boundaries discussed.

So if for example, there was a drunk hook-up where one partner was not particularly enthusiastic or didn't really seem to enjoy the sex a "grey area" isn't generally considered but most people that advocate enthusiastic consent model seem to just argue it was not consensual. Or that maybe it was consensual but frowned upon because the dominant party (usually the guy) should have engaged in more communication, made 100% certain there was enthusiasm. It doesn't really matter that not a lot of sex is particularly enthusiastic because this was a hook-up. 

Doesn't matter if the guy had communication difficulties such as autism because there are autistic guys that don't make these mistakes and if you feel a condition could limit your ability to have healthy sexual relationships you should just not have sex for the other person's sake. Not necessarily my view as I feel there are yet more complications that could arise and it's not really as straightforward to just say all autistic people have the same degree of autism, the same types of issues or that you can really tell someone "just don't have sex" when they might not even be aware there is such an issue to begin with. However, that seems to be the mainstream position from those in the BDSM community I've discussed with.

As a sidenote, the argument for maintaining these premises is related to a model of empirical interpretation that false allegations are extremely low anyway - 2-10% - and usually easy to identify, for example a pregnant adolescent girl may initially accuse someone of to escape judgement from conservative religious parents and then later drop the charge, never really intending harm to the person accused. Or celebrities and men from high status legal careers are often falsely accused of for gain and easy enough to identify for that reason. And the vast majority of  charges are dropped because of attitudes in the system. Typical date charges are usually true. This is the theory.

But it kind of also assumes that the minority of the men who are taken to court and are prosecuted that because it is so infrequent and the woman does not fit an "archetype" of a false accuser she must be believed because so few guilty men are prosecuted to begin with and women must fit an archetype to be believed. Furthermore, it seems to be the case that we are to assume that because of such negative attitudes by police and in the system the majority these men who walk away without even a trial were probably guilty and I just don't feel comfortable with that assumption. Absolutely, it's the case that the police should be investigating and taking all  claims seriously.

My other scepticism is that penalisation can come in other forms such as trial by social media and general ostracisation. And besides when we are talking about consent, we are not just talking about literal consent to penetration but a whole host of sexual activities where lines can be crossed. And if it's the case a misunderstanding has occurred on behalf of the male (or dominant party), the reaction from the woman (or submissive party) isn't a "false accusation" in my opinion. It's a legitimate and understandable response to something that's gone wrong, it just might be that the behaviour was not so malicious as we maybe imagine.

Personally I have been groped in nightclubs and even had my penis grabbed by a woman and there wasn't a hyper-literal discussion of consent where I was asked what was acceptable & I stated explicitly what was permitted and what was not. In fact, such a conversation itself could be considered a breach of consent - after all I have never consented to a stranger asking me what sexual boundaries I am comfortable with having explored and which ones are not. You could argue that this is the type of conversation that should be discussed only in an intimate setting, so then we could actually rule out the majority - if not all - casual sex/related activities as a form of sexual harassment by the dominant party. These actions were actually non-consensual but never did I see them as malicious (in fact sort of glad it happened in a way due to some of my own behaviours I'd rather forget) - the women were mostly drunk and I had been flirting with quite a few of them earlier in the night anyway. However it just seems when men do these things they become part of some cold statistic & ruled into some "obnoxious creep" category, like for example, this student beans report that mentions how frequently women were groped in nightclubs without their consent.

Anyway, the consent paradox I wanted to discuss wasn't really to do with that but actually I wanted to assume for the sake of argument all of the premises people of this sort of disposition hold true about consent was cut and dry. I.e. it were all infallibly tested and all the empirical evidence undeniably correct. I personally think then by this definition a lot of practices in BDSM we assume to be consensual actually are not. For example, in the same way you could consider a woman who had maybe one alcoholic drink or let's say, 10 alcoholic drinks "beyond" the capability of reasonable consent, or perhaps a woman legally considered one year too young to provide rational, informed consent, you could consider - ethically, if not legally - that some people are.

A submissive could for example be considered to have self-esteem issues or mental health problems, even. They might even be the one to make the request to engage in a degrading sex act that has been explicitly discussed with a dominant - safewords, boundaries, etc. all of those discussed very thoroughly. You could say they were "enthusiastically" consenting to a number of sex acts, they could be things like ***s, ***, cuckolding, feminisation, rough penetration, etc. (not all activities specific to one particular gender). And in the BDSM community, people seem to be very happy to label these activities as "sane", "healthy", "consensual" and "not my kink but that's ok". But rarely is the psychological health or ability to rationally provide consent to these activities by a submissive seriously questioned.

Rather, the interpretation of enthusiastic consent by the BDSM world seems to be hyper-literal to the vanilla world where people actually do consider a range of scenarios and factors, like what it could be considered to be "enthusiastically consenting" in the first place. So is it really clear cut that either your partner is obviously enthusiastically consenting otherwise you discuss boundaries if you're not sure? Or does dogmatically abiding to this principle actually rule out a number of activities a lot of vanilla people (men & women) actually consider to be healthy & consensual among themselves, while providing a loophole for people in the BDSM community to exploit those with psychological problems for their personal gratification? Is there or isn't there a "consent paradox" and if so, does it really help matters to just pretend like it doesn't exist?

[ey****]

15 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

"it's not consensual unless you are enthusiastic about consenting"

I think the word 'enthusiastic' is often a misunderstood one in some of these situations.   So, for example *** isn't consent - and it'd also be questionable as you've touched upon if someone can make a sound decision after drinking.

But, for example - someone who is asexual might not enjoy the sex, but still might be happy to have sex because of a partner (or their own struggles with asexuality) and someone who works as full service sex worker, there's touches which is grey - for example someone who is a struggle sex worker may feel they have less options on refusing clients then someone who does OK.  But, there's also consent and boundaries within sex work - I dunno, "Will you do anal?", "No", "I'll pay you extra" is *** even if the worker goes through with it.   That it would be taking advantage of someone's vulnerability to push over their defined boundaries.

15 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

false allegations are extremely low anyway - 2-10%

they are and this is very important.  But, some of your 'easy to spot' examples.  It's difficult.  

There's different stages in the process between an event and a verdict.   There will be people along the road who try to talk the victim out of pursing the charges which is based on everything from "you're going to ruin their life over this" to casting the seed of doubt that it was just an 'honest mistake' to also assessing a likelihood in court in getting a conviction.

We cannot assume that a dropped charge was a false accusation just as we can't assume a 'not guilty' because only 9 out of 12 jurors reached a guilty verdict is actually a guilty.

The guilties we know are where the person is actually convicted and the false allegations is the ones where they are not only found innocent but that the accuser is found guilty of making it up (or later admits it - and we trust their "OK I made it up" as a position of admission rather than one of pressure) 

Everything in the middle is rather complicated.

15 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

And if it's the case a misunderstanding has occurred on behalf of the male (or dominant party), the reaction from the woman (or submissive party) isn't a "false accusation" in my opinion. It's a legitimate and understandable response to something that's gone wrong, it just might be that the behaviour was not so malicious as we maybe imagine.

that is very true.  I think it is still therefore on the person accused to put up their hands they made a mistake and for people to look at a solution.  Unfortunately, it is often than wrong doing will be denied or brushed as some form of 'personal responsibility' towards the submissive/accuser.

I think we'd make more progress if people put hands up to mistakes.

15 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

A submissive could for example be considered to have self-esteem issues or mental health problems, even. They might even be the one to make the request to engage in a degrading sex act that has been explicitly discussed with a dominant

Yes - and this happens.  It's why I think it's very important to support submissives to stop them making this sort of mistake - and making sure any overly willingness is down to "wanting to explore" or wanting that dynamic rather than "wanting attention at any cost"

15 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

So is it really clear cut that either your partner is obviously enthusiastically consenting otherwise you discuss boundaries if you're not sure? Or does dogmatically abiding to this principle actually rule out a number of activities a lot of vanilla people (men & women) actually consider to be healthy & consensual among themselves, while providing a loophole for people in the BDSM community to exploit those with psychological problems for their personal gratification? Is there or isn't there a "consent paradox" and if so, does it really help matters to just pretend like it doesn't exist?

I think it's always important to check boundaries and that wanting to push outside of these is for the right reasons.

There are many people on this forum with wonderful CNC dynamics - but obviously this carries risk for those who want it for seemingly wrong reasons.   I don't need someone to love being ***ed on for me to *** on them - I do need to know they are, ultimately, ok with this in whatever set up.   And I think this is why a lot with wonderful CNC relationships have those built over a long time.

[Deleted Member]

You're looking at many factors to an at here. Nothing wrong with that, but can be difficult to break down. A discussion regarding this has taken place before. My position on "enthusiastic consent" is that in order for one to exist as abstract that manifests into reality, then its antithesis must also exist: unenthusiastic consent. Considering this further, we know it's not as binary as that, and as such there are degrees of variance (think of a 360 degree wheel) that oscillate congruently, exclusively nuanced to the individuals involved.


Degrees of variance permeate the lifestyle and it's variety of kinks. It's in our very nature to be varied: one person's "enthusiastic consent" is another's "unenthusiastic consent." These are shaped by a spectrum of factors such as experience and data interpretation/processing, but that's a different matter. For reasons stated previously and that which follow, personally, "enthusiastic consent" cannot exist as a unifying entity that encompasses all degrees of variance.


It is up to us, again only my opinion, as individuals to construct the idea of what is "consent" with the parties involved, dissecting the discourse via appertures of semantics and pragmatics to solidify what "consent" as an abstract means to us. That is, not just reading/hearing what is said on the surface, but the contextual data exchanged by both parties. You mentioned other factors such as psychological impairments/dysfunctions and learning disabilities; again, those ats are not uniform and do not cross over the board in equal measures, it varies from person to person: degrees of variance with numerous factors. There was also an assumption, and I'd be inclined to agree with you as well, that this could be weaponised as a tool to take advantage of the psychologically ***. If we are to assume this, then we must assume that there are those with psychological problems who try to take advantage as well: another paradox.


It's certainly not as clear cut when trying to find the absolute form and definition of such an idea. I'd be very hard pushed to establish where the paradox comes into play unless it's something I apply to myself (if it does at all and it's just our interpretation of our reality that muddies it), but I wouldn't expect it any other way due to its complexity.


Good read. Certainly thought provoking.

[Deleted Member]

7 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

*** isn't consent

No it is not, unless of course we are talking about *** as part of a consensual non-consent practice ... but then, is somebody of the right state of mind to make such a decision. And I am not just talking about being sober but making a rational decision. For example, some people may voluntarily participate in degrading sex acts because they have low self-esteem, they believe they deserve to be degraded or something. Or it may be that they are being paid to participate, in which case it may be that they strongly dislike certain sex acts but need ***. We consider this sort of party as having "consented" in common speak and maybe even by the enthusiastic consent model certain people will say that person has "enthusiastically consented". But what does that actually mean and does it become the only significant thing - whether they've consented or done so enthusiastically.

 

Quote

it'd also be questionable as you've touched upon if someone can make a sound decision after drinking.

How drunk is drunk, right? We've all seen movies and perhaps even real life situations where people come back from a night out tipsy or perhaps even a few too many but seem to be very happy in each other's company. At what point do we say someone is "too drunk" to give enthusiastic consent? Is it when they are paralytic / can't move ... or is it a little before that point? What about if two people wake up together not remembering the night before - should it be the dominant party that takes responsibility and how do we know which is the dominant party (it may be that the physically stronger one was also the drunker one and therefore more *** the night before)?

 

Quote

But, there's also consent and boundaries within sex work - I dunno, "Will you do anal?", "No", "I'll pay you extra" is *** even if the worker goes through with it.   That it would be taking advantage of someone's vulnerability to push over their defined boundaries.

See, personally I don't think the sex industry can get the green light until economic inequality is no longer an issue and we all live in a sustainable society. It might be not the client but the pimp for example who tells an escort she must consent to practices like anal to keep business flowing, otherwise she will lose her only stable source of income, not be able to provide for her kids, etc. The client may have no idea how she is pressured into certain things. Or he may not think he is pressuring her by offering her extra *** at all just giving her an option to take more and he would be perfectly happy to hear her say no. Thing is the less *** an escort makes, the more problematic it becomes for her to enthusiastically consent to certain practices and I don't think it is simple or easy to draw a fine line where she enthusiastically consents and where she doesn't.

 

Quote

But, some of your 'easy to spot' examples.  It's difficult.  

To be clear, this is an argument I came across - that we shouldn't worry about false accusers because when they happen they are in a minority and fall into an archetype that is "easy to spot". It's not my own argument. As far as I'm concerned a standard date accusation could be false for all we know. And somebody accusing a high profile man (e.g. celebrity, senior judge, etc.) might not be doing so for personal gain at all but might be a genuine accuser. I don't like the idea of archetypes at all but it seems to be an argument some feminists like using to dispel the notion we have to take false accusations seriously. I also don't like the 2-10% argument because it presumes we can determine with empirical accuracy which accusations are genuine and which are false. As far as I'm concerned, a man that walks free could be guilty (and it doesn't really matter what stage this happens after the accusation is made), just like a man that gets a sentence could be innocent - for all we know.

 

Quote

The guilties we know are where the person is actually convicted and the false allegations is the ones where they are not only found innocent but that the accuser is found guilty of making it up (or later admits it - and we trust their "OK I made it up" as a position of admission rather than one of pressure) 

Exactly, right? So when I hear claims that false accusations are xyz% and this has been empirically confirmed you can understand why I treat those with a pinch of scepticism.

 

Quote

that is very true.  I think it is still therefore on the person accused to put up their hands they made a mistake and for people to look at a solution. 

Normally I would agree but it might not be as simple as that. The person being accused might be being accused of doing a lot more or a lot worse than what actually happened. For example, it might be that initially he was being pushy or something in the bedroom then realised his behaviour was utterly toxic, apologised and the woman left. And then she might later accuse him of attempting to her for example when that wasn't really where he was going at all. Anything he admits to at this point could implicate him of a crime a lot more heinous and with much more serious repercussions.

 

Quote

Unfortunately, it is often than wrong doing will be denied or brushed as some form of 'personal responsibility' towards the submissive/accuser.

And I typically agree that this is a poor mentality people have about sexual *** allegations especially for more serious allegations than what I'm about to describe. But there could be situations for example when it would be true that two people were flirting for a long time, touching each other, kissing and slowly building up to something but the woman didn't really want things to escalate to anything sexual. She could be shocked and offended that the guy suddenly touched her breast for example, and he would have no sympathy from people advocating enthusiastic consent because as far as they're concerned, there should have been a conversation, he should have asked permission, not just taken for granted he was allowed to touch her breast because of a "sexually charged" atmosphere in the room.

And personally, I just think communication happens in more ways than what is verbal and perhaps there should be a certain degree of responsibility even on a submissive party what they communicate. In fact people are often saying women are better communicators than men, if that's true of a particular situation just being dominant, as in physically dominant, might not be enough information for the guy to realise "oh, at this point I'm supposed to ask permission, read the atmosphere more closely, figure out if she really wants me to touch her breast". It might be that it just seems obvious to him that touching her breast then and there without spoiling a moment that seems light & fun by talking too much is what he's "supposed" to do. If guys are really more autistic than women, assuming he is not being physically/psychologically intimidating, perhaps there is more of a burden of responsibility for the woman to communicate than what we tend to assume.

 

Quote

Yes - and this happens.  It's why I think it's very important to support submissives to stop them making this sort of mistake - and making sure any overly willingness is down to "wanting to explore" or wanting that dynamic rather than "wanting attention at any cost"

Ok but how do you ever really know? There could be all kinds of things going on with that submissive in their life that we don't really know about. We could genuinely be of the opinion that the person wants to engage in a sexual act which for them is actually self-destructive and that the submissive is just expressing themselves/exploring their sexuality. It's at times like this the idea of a conversation advocates of enthusiastic consent model propose seems naive. I mean I'm sure that a conversation is better than no conversation.

But at what point do we say, "ok the dominant should have known better" and then change our minds to, "well actually it's hard to have known how they could have known better" and finally, "actually, the submissive should take a certain amount of personal responsibility - they need to open up more about themselves so others know what's going on". Do you see my drift? Enthusiastic consent model wants to pin all or most of the responsibility on the dominant party but in plenty of real life situations, it's just not that straight forward.

 

Quote

I don't need someone to love being ***ed on for me to *** on them - I do need to know they are, ultimately, ok with this in whatever set up.

See, I personally would get a lot more out of a sex act knowing or believing that the other person truly enjoys it. It's what marks the difference for me between a shared/reciprocal moment versus a moment that is just one person selflessly serving another. But people do not always communicate effectively or well at all and I for one don't believe this is always done with malicious intent but often it's just a human limitation we have not being able to read minds. I don't like it, in fact I seriously dislike it but it does seem reality to some extent.

[Cade]

I think the paradox of "enthusiastic consent" sprouts from the fact that enthusiasm is subjective; that is to say, what one person feels is enthusiastic, someone else may not.

Likewise, it is easy to be enthusiastic when consenting to participate with activities one might enjoy only. The reality of some BDSM dynamics is that there are some relationship types that one person may have to participate with activities they do not enjoy - at all. In these cases, the more informed an individual may be about what they are consenting to may well limit the amount of enthusiasm they consent with; and vice versa, it's easy to be enthusiastic if you don't know all the experiences you might have to endure. In this case, I'd far more prefer fully informed consent over enthusiastic consent, for the obvious reason. As a sadist, I need my partner to be aware of what they are consenting to, and I have to be honest, enthusiastic consent to me presents a red flag; that perhaps the prospective partner doesn't understand what my desires are for them, and are more *** by new relationship energy and blind to the reality of my lifestyle.

I do agree, *** is not consent. But a lack of enthusiasm does not necessarily mean ***.

[Deleted Member]

On 7/21/2020 at 9:10 PM, JustTheBlockingDom said:

You're looking at many factors to an at here.

Sure. People often prefer to isolate a single factor to explore it in great depth but forget how that factor may influence or even be interconnected with many other things. For example if we set a rule like "women can't consent with alcohol in their system" it ignores many other situations where for instance a woman and a man might be equally drunk, they might be able to demonstrate to each other their having a good time still, they may still be in a position to give consent. It might be ruling out a lot of vanilla sex situations as non-consensual or telling people they don't know how to consent properly/they don't know what they're doing when actually that just isn't the case.

Or a better example might be introducing a conversation to discuss each other's boundaries as a pre-requirement to enthusiastic consent. Might sound good on paper but in practice, who's to say some people might not object to such a discussion as something you are trying to bring up with them when the two of you are not intimate enough for that. The conversation itself might be considered a breach of boundaries. Or it might be that they want such a conversation but they want you to take a sensitive approach with certain things, in which case clumsily making a bad approach might itself be considered a breach of boundaries.

Or, pornography was something I didn't really mention because consent is typically considered between two partners engaging in a sexual conduct, as opposed to the consent you may (or may not) have to view someone's material online. For example, you may not have consent to watch an actress' video that has been dispersed freely. Or it may be that she has signed a contract but non-enthusiastically for her producers to disperse her videos freely (e.g. for advertising purposes) in order to get paid. Or perhaps it may be that the content you are viewing was something that appears as non-consensual consent but actually the actress was not fully aware what she was agreeing to when she signed up to be in a certain scene. Or perhaps content that is made to appear as if the actress consented but actually she has a gun pointed at her behind the camera - who's to really say?

You or I could be unwittingly aiding the content distribution of a trade that's either exploitative or actually illegal when we consume pornographic content that's been made freely accessible online. So then the question is, how much responsibility does the viewer have or people distributing certain content & website owners to research the actors/actresses in a scene to find out what agreements were made prior to / post production? Is this information even available? Should free consumption of pornography be legal in the first place? Would forcing people to access pay sites even mitigate the problem (if for example a pay site engages in illegal activities, or people are driven to unfamiliar & dangerous territories online in order to continue freely consuming pornography they think/hope is consensual)?

These aren't really questions that are being answered when an ivory tower academic simply says that everyone should get enthusiastic consent for sexual activities or have a conversation about what practices are consensual. Because it doesn't assess the broader implications of such an assertion it's guilty of the charge I stated earlier about only considering one factor in full detail at a time - when actually, this needs to be a significantly larger conversation.

 

Quote

My position on "enthusiastic consent" is that in order for one to exist as abstract that manifests into reality, then its antithesis must also exist: unenthusiastic consent.

Both certainly exist and enthusiastic consent is without shadow of doubt the ideal. The question is, when do we enter murky territory and objectively qualify that this thing is enthusiastically consenting to a practice whereas this other thing is not. People are inclined to argue it's all obvious - and that any point of view against is an apologia for manipulative & sexually aggressive people - largely because they don't want to imagine there are situations where someone is a victim of something and the perpetrator is actually not that guilty.

 

Quote

Considering this further, we know it's not as binary as that, and as such there are degrees of variance (think of a 360 degree wheel) that oscillate congruently, exclusively nuanced to the individuals involved.

Yes, it might well be that we all have our individual wheels synchronised to a certain point. For example for myself it may be that the wheel is positioned as such to consider drunken sex consensual as long as both parties are still able to coherently express their enthusiasm for a certain practice, while for you it may be that neither party should have consumed any alcohol whatsoever for a practice to be considered consensual.

I may consider a conversation in a first date about what sexual practices are ok for the other person to be within socially acceptable limits provided it's approached tactfully, whereas you may believe no conversation should be approached whatsoever until a couple are married. Or perhaps (for all we know) you have a far more lenient scale and approach to what we can consider enthusiastic consent. Unless there is a contract & small print for every sexual engagement we have no way saying what's really enthusiastic. And even then, some might say that a person was not in a rational state of mind to sign such a contract anyway. Or that the small print was "open to interpretation" - who is really to say?
 

Quote

These are shaped by a spectrum of factors such as experience and data interpretation/processing

It is and that's quite alarming in a way. Somebody less experienced with sex might be unable to manage more aggressive moves that somebody who's experienced is used to doing and having rough sex with other consenting partners, or maybe might not realise this person's inexperienced. Or it might be that the less experienced person is the one that is too excited making forward moves, not really knowledgeable enough that these things have to be taken slowly with certain people, small steps made and occasional gentle clarification of boundaries requested.

It's not simple enough to say that a breach of boundaries was wilful and intended. Instead we need people to take a more nuanced approach to educating others how they can have safe, sane and consensual practices, being especially careful about moralising or asserting superiority over people who are uncertain about boundaries or those that suppose there may be a blurred line between what we consider consensual and what we do not.
 

Quote

It is up to us, again only my opinion, as individuals to construct the idea of what is "consent" with the parties involved, dissecting the discourse via appertures of semantics and pragmatics to solidify what "consent" as an abstract means to us.

Sure, if more people had this kind of conversation not only would people be more aware of what one another's boundaries are but we would have a better idea on a social level how to tackle this particular problem with a matter of nuance and not taking anything for granted. I think people shouldn't be so quick to be offended not just to be requested knowledge about their personal boundaries but to also suggest it could be difficult to determine what those boundaries could be.

I think this is more of a problem with casual sex actually where people do not know each other and thus don't know how to appropriately initiate such a conversation, however some people can be trapped the best part of their entire lives with a partner that just doesn't know or care what they want or what things please them and what things are harmful for them during sex. I am sympathetic with feminists when it comes to this point that far too many women live in this kind of toxic relationship, with no such discussion and that for too many years it has been considered the accepted norm, even, for the man to simply "take what is his". So again, I think such conversations are healthy, I just don't think we should consider it's the only way for a healthy sexual relationship to happen or that dominant individuals can necessarily be blamed alone for not initiating such a discussion in any and every sexual encounter.

 

Quote

That is, not just reading/hearing what is said on the surface, but the contextual data exchanged by both parties. You mentioned other factors such as psychological impairments/dysfunctions and learning disabilities; again, those ats are not uniform and do not cross over the board in equal measures, it varies from person to person: degrees of variance with numerous factors.

Exactly. I have heard many people discuss "autism" for instance as if it has a uniform quality. For example, I have heard the statement "well I am autistic / my son / nephew / cousin is autistic and I / we have never had an issue with consent or having a healthy discussion on consent". This could be a faulty premise for many reasons though, for instance an autistic person may or may not have been informed that due to their condition they should consider such a discussion. Or that depending on the extremity of their condition perhaps even consider not pursuing sexual relations with others at all unless, for instance it's with a qualified sex worker (but then might that not be exploitative of women ***d by economic necessity to get a career in the sex industry?).

Or it might be that an autistic person has no such issue understanding consent but that may be because there disability impacts their ability to feel confident and not anxious in social situations, rather than their ability to read social cues. For another autistic person, it might be that their confidence is not so much affected as their ability to read cues. Many social situations can be a disaster for this kind of autism and we can imagine by extension that sexual encounters could be particularly hazardous. But sometimes a person doesn't even know this is a potential hazard until they've encountered such an obstacle. It may even be an obstacle that can be removed in the future. Should we consider then that this person should not be able to move beyond a past mistake or encounter gone wrong but that a mistake should haunt them to their grave? Or is it appropriate to consider that they have learned and will behave differently next time?

Or perhaps the disability may not be neurodivergence at all, it might be that a deaf person needs to find a different way to communicate. Or that a non-deaf person has to find a way to communicate boundaries for a sexual encounter with a deaf person when they do not speak sign language. Then the argument of "well you should always ask questions to find another's boundaries" becomes somewhat redundant. And we have to consider then that sexual communication in some if not all situations has to be purely intuitive. And it becomes a particular problem when some people are not necessarily malicious but rather somewhat un-intuitive or lacking in common sense.

 

Quote

There was also an assumption, and I'd be inclined to agree with you as well, that this could be weaponised as a tool to take advantage of the psychologically ***. If we are to assume this, then we must assume that there are those with psychological problems who try to take advantage as well: another paradox.

Which is why in my opinion, it is especially important that this discussion is had to consider as many different angles and how to tackle those issues. More, in my personal opinion, than what the enthusiastic model of consent currently approaches where certain situations it may just be taken for granted that the correct behaviour is intuitive and/or obvious but may actually not be the case at all. I think in any case when people have bad emotional reactions and say things like "consent doesn't really exist" or "why are you speaking to me like a 5 year old, I know what behaviours are acceptable to my partner" it's often because the way the issue is presented comes across condescending or judgemental even - as if to assume any potential breach of boundaries must have either been acted out of pure negligence or wilful maliciousness.

I think that as a public conversation, this has to be had with a softer tone otherwise the dialogue has been shut down before it's even begun. And sure, there are rapists and ***rs who will never care about or take the time/consideration to learn these things. But they are actually not the ones such a conversation is aimed at and I think this needs to be made clear.
 

Quote

It's certainly not as clear cut when trying to find the absolute form and definition of such an idea. I'd be very hard pushed to establish where the paradox comes into play unless it's something I apply to myself (if it does at all and it's just our interpretation of our reality that muddies it), but I wouldn't expect it any other way due to its complexity.

It certainly isn't an easy subject and requires people to take ownership and accountability sometimes to face hard truths about themselves. Or sometimes requires people to be sensitive and realise the emotional impact it may have on others to explore certain topics, that some people have been a victim of sexual misconduct and so it is hard for them. Or that others need time and space to realise they have possibly initiated a non-consensual activity.

[ey****]

2 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

How drunk is drunk, right? We've all seen movies and perhaps even real life situations where people come back from a night out tipsy or perhaps even a few too many but seem to be very happy in each other's company. At what point do we say someone is "too drunk" to give enthusiastic consent?

This is actually something that is really difficult.  I think if two people have both had a few too many then it'd be very difficult to attain either had done anything wrong.  If one person has had considerably less to drink than the other then I think questions to ask themselves is kind of like "is this right?", "Will the other person regret this tomorrow?", "Will I be better bidding them good night and we can pick this up another day" - or even - "Was there anything when we were both sober to suggest this would be OK?"

If we're talking kink then remember that alcohol can affect the *** tolerance and of course affect the accuracy.

If someone has a reputation of playing while drunk or playing with those who have been drinking a lot it can ask questions on their intentions and responsibility.  

As a slight personal preference.  And this is not a rule I think should be followed universally - it is very unlikely I will play with someone after one or both of us had more than 2 drinks.  There are exceptions - but, there's only two people I've played with above this - and one is my wife and the other is my former Mistress.

2 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

It might be not the client but the pimp for example who tells an escort she must consent to practices like anal to keep business flowing, otherwise she will lose her only stable source of income, not be able to provide for her kids, etc.

Whilst pimps are still in existence - they're less widespread.  Certainly they still exist - but there's more and more available for SWers to have more control.    But, of course they still exist and are often involved in trafficking or other forms of entrapment and debt contracts. But that already comes with problems before it starts.  

For the best part. Assume nothing with a lady with a pimp is consensual. 

That said - there was an interesting blog from a Lady who had a Pimp because it was best and safest for her - but that's a different angle.

I think you can again probably tell if you're doing something with someone she's really not into.

3 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

Normally I would agree but it might not be as simple as that. The person being accused might be being accused of doing a lot more or a lot worse than what actually happened. For example, it might be that initially he was being pushy or something in the bedroom then realised his behaviour was utterly toxic, apologised and the woman left. And then she might later accuse him of attempting to her for example when that wasn't really where he was going at all.

I don't think people really realise their wrong-doings mid-scene. 

There's also a number of reasons why any attempt by her to exaggerate the situation wouldn't hold water - but that also, why did she leave - because she was genuinely afraid he would.  She was frightened.  This isn't someone being dramatic and not something a simple apology will wash over.

He messed up here and there are consequences.  But do you know what would be worse? If he lied about his wrong doing to ***t her as a complete fantasist.  That's gaslighting. That's emotional ***.

What was possibly an honest mistake when he stood back and let her leave when he realised, becomes a whole lot more sinister if he lies about it.

 

3 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

It's at times like this the idea of a conversation advocates of enthusiastic consent model propose seems naive. I mean I'm sure that a conversation is better than no conversation.

Communication is important.

And this is something which is often lost in casual play sometimes - but it's important to know boundaries and while there doesn't need to be a psychoanalysis - ideally, anything you do there should be a "with confidence" that it was OK.
That you are not going fuck up someone for your gratification.  Well, not without knowing it's OK.

And I think there are people where if a sub approaches, "i want you to do this with me" that there are Dominants who would jump and do it - but sometimes the more responsible answer is "I only do *that* with subs I've a close relationship with" and of course the reason is using the time between the ask and the event to establish that it is really what they wanted or that they'd enjoy it more doing it "for them" than "for the sake of it"

[ey****]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

I do agree, *** is not consent. But a lack of enthusiasm does not necessarily mean ***.

Absolutely. I think the word 'enthusiasm' is definitely one that is often misunderstood

[ey****]

as a mild further

I can't find it but there was a blog I read the other day about the differences between boundary pushing, consent ***, honest mistakes, sexual *** - etc.

I may do my own version of it for here (I can't find the blog so it'd be an in-my-own-words post) all of them are potentially bad, but there's differences in the context.

I think I do agree that there's a lot we shouldn't pretend is black and white - but in any incident - something needs addressing.

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, eyemblacksheep said:

For the best part. Assume nothing with a lady with a pimp is consensual. 

That could certainly be a valid assumption - if you know they have a pimp to begin with. But even if you do know, not all pimps and madames conduct their business in the same way. Some may be a lot more legit.

 

Quote

I don't think people really realise their wrong-doings mid-scene. 

I mean, it's entirely possible.

 

There's also a number of reasons why any attempt by her to exaggerate the situation wouldn't hold water

Uh, I don't think so. As soon as he admitted he was being "pushy" any number of people might ask what was meant by "pushy" and in what regard he was being "pushy"  - i.e. if he was seriously intending to that woman.

 

Quote

- but that also, why did she leave - because she was genuinely afraid he would.  She was frightened. 

I mean perhaps I am playing devil's advocate a tad here however people often get afraid without others intending them to be and without there being a serious risk. I'm not seriously blaming anyone for getting afraid, just pointing out that a misplaced sense of *** is something any of us can experience.

 

Quote

But do you know what would be worse? If he lied about his wrong doing to ***t her as a complete fantasist.  That's gaslighting. That's emotional ***.

I mean there's a difference between not talking about something and ***ting someone as a complete fantasist. I know what I would personally say in a situation like that - I would just say that it was entirely possible I had engaged in behaviours that could have been misinterpreted by another party and it was never my intention to cause harm but regardless it was my fault that I didn't present my intentions in a clearer, more responsible manner. Now that isn't gaslighting anyone or saying it is another person's fault.

 

Quote

And this is something which is often lost in casual play sometimes - but it's important to know boundaries and while there doesn't need to be a psychoanalysis - ideally, anything you do there should be a "with confidence" that it was OK.

Well you say that there doesn't need to be a psychoanalysis but actually as our understanding about human behaviour and consent improves, the social media dialogue becomes increasingly more intense and people's behaviours are scrutinised a lot more carefully than they maybe were in the past. I think it becomes increasingly important - if anything - to psychoanalyse people to determine what exactly was done and what precisely was intended to happen. Otherwise a misunderstanding can become a lot more prolonged.

 

Quote

That you are not going fuck up someone for your gratification.  Well, not without knowing it's OK.

That's my point - we don't always realise something is OK before the damage has been done. If any other situation were the case, humans would not irrevocably break things the way they often do.

 

Quote

And I think there are people where if a sub approaches, "i want you to do this with me" that there are Dominants who would jump and do it - but sometimes the more responsible answer is "I only do *that* with subs I've a close relationship with" and of course the reason is using the time between the ask and the event to establish that it is really what they wanted or that they'd enjoy it more doing it "for them" than "for the sake of it"

Ok but this kind of extended dialogue doesn't happen a lot in real life. I get that most sex doesn't include the type of roleplay or sub/dom relationships you or I might be thinking of but also, I hope you don't believe so much of the vanilla sex scenarios that happen is non-consensual because partners often simply don't have this kind of extended dialogue.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Deleted Member

[ey****]

8 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

I mean perhaps I am playing devil's advocate a tad here however people often get afraid without others intending them to be and without there being a serious risk. I'm not seriously blaming anyone for getting afraid, just pointing out that a misplaced sense of *** is something any of us can experience.

I think you kinda got back to this on your next point.

But, if you (or whoever) ends up scaring somebody without intending to - then acknowledging you did this (within yourself if nothing else) is part of growth.

And that sometimes, even an unintended action has consequence.  Like - at the risk of going leftfield - someone who is found guilty of manslaughter didn't mean to kill somebody, but they still did and there's still consequences for it.

So if the other person feels that the offender may have gone on to sexually *** them - then that's valid and it's going to take time to accept this was a mistake and not the case.

If there feeling was misplaced - then it's pretty much important to understand why they felt like this and also kinda grow from that.   The guy in your scenario had already been pushy and despite realising midscene, this isn't to say this shouldn't have any form of fallback.

You can't just undo things with a sorry. However trivial they may seem to you.

8 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

I hope you don't believe so much of the vanilla sex scenarios that happen is non-consensual because partners often simply don't have this kind of extended dialogue.

There's probably a lot (still) happens in vanilla sex that isn't as consensual as we believe also.  Whether it's one partner or another doing something through ***. Or having said 'no' to sex, but the other partner carried on teasing and just kinda "If we have sex they'll leave me alone" 

But also, in all scenarios there's a level of 'assumed consent'.  Can you imagine how ridiculous it'd be if a couple met and decided to go back for sex and it was a micromanagement of "can I touch your hair?", "Can I pinch your bottom?", "Can I stroke your leg?", "Can I suck your tits?" whatever - you can almost assume most things are OK unless you're told not to (i.e. you go to touch someone's nipple and they say they don't like it - so you stop) 

But a lot is context based.  

[Deleted Member]

11 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

But, if you (or whoever) ends up scaring somebody without intending to - then acknowledging you did this (within yourself if nothing else) is part of growth.

For sure, I'm not denying this. It's very important in fact, otherwise you will end up repeating the same mistakes. Guilt = growth. I'm simply talking in strict legal terms about not implicating yourself for an allegation that could be a lot more heinous than what you've done. They say the truth will set you free but often times it's the opposite.

 

Quote

And that sometimes, even an unintended action has consequence.  Like - at the risk of going leftfield - someone who is found guilty of manslaughter didn't mean to kill somebody, but they still did and there's still consequences for it.

Well, I mean it all depends. Were they defending themselves for example?  Did they experience a history of *** from that person? Was it really negligent/manslaughter - e.g. did the person suddenly jump out in front of their car while they were driving? I mean it could be that you had two drinks driving and were barely over the limit, then someone jumps out in front of your car in a way you couldn't have put the brakes on even if you were sober - then you'd get blamed regardless.

Or I was watching a Netflix series (can't remember the name) and the guy is driving without a license as his brother (a lawyer) is slightly over the limit - then a guy commits *** by jumping in front of the car (he was dying from terminal illness). They have to carry his body back to his house and make it look like he died of natural causes because the driver was not licensed. Context is key - we can be implicated in things in a very technical/legal sense. But ethically it's not the same.

 

Quote

So if the other person feels that the offender may have gone on to sexually *** them - then that's valid and it's going to take time to accept this was a mistake and not the case.

Yes, I get that. I'm not trying to take the right to feel that way from anyone who is/could be a victim, strictly speaking. It just seems that socially speaking, women are let off the hook a lot more frequently when they're the ones responsible for one of these misshappen - because overall they are less physically threatening, I suppose. But actually not necessarily more nuanced or tactile. I think many of us underestimate how much easier it is to be tactile and perceived in a different way when you are a pretty thing that weighs less and happens to be less physically powerful. Something that is essentially genetic or otherwise environmental (e.g. you can lift weights and eat more to be bigger/stronger, I suppose) rather than a conscious decision.

 

Quote

You can't just undo things with a sorry.

That's true: the damage is done.

 

Quote

However trivial they may seem to you.

I don't think trivial is a word I used.

 

Quote

There's probably a lot (still) happens in vanilla sex that isn't as consensual as we believe also.  Whether it's one partner or another doing something through ***. Or having said 'no' to sex, but the other partner carried on teasing and just kinda "If we have sex they'll leave me alone" 

I mean, I think for all the talk about "consent is sexy" and "it's not a yes unless it's a fuck yes" and "it's not BDSM if it's not consensual" from BDSM groups, actually a lot of BDSM could be considered as not eliciting that "fuck yes" at all. But rather, taking advantage of people with serious self-esteem issues and perhaps even psychological problems. Informed consent like what @Cade mentions is a thing. But how often do people really understand everything that's going to happen in a scene - like, the way every little thing is going to feel, all of the things that are going to happen. And if we're talking about dom/sub relationships, we could be talking about a roleplay that could be taking place over days, weeks or months. Like keeping someone in chastity for example.

And let's say it is informed consent and a submissive agrees to something purely out of some kind of altruistic devotion to a dominant ... or serious self-esteem issues. What then, is that consent obtained rationally? I mean, in a lot of feminist circles they tend to describe murky casual sex hook-up scenarios as generally a major red flag - with good reason. But I can think of many BDSM scenarios where the consent may not be obtained rationally in a real sense at all - I mean we could consider a submissive being in a child like state of mind when they agree to something. Especially if they are one of these "I have no limits" type of sub, or "whatever the dominant pleases is my limit" is particularly worrying, unless you have a seriously high level of trust with that person.

 

Quote

But also, in all scenarios there's a level of 'assumed consent'.  Can you imagine how ridiculous it'd be if a couple met and decided to go back for sex and it was a micromanagement of "can I touch your hair?", "Can I pinch your bottom?", "Can I stroke your leg?", "Can I suck your tits?" whatever - you can almost assume most things are OK unless you're told not to (i.e. you go to touch someone's nipple and they say they don't like it - so you stop) 

Well you call it ridiculous but there are feminists/advocates of enthusiastic consent model that say you should do just that. By this theory, any breach or misunderstanding about what the woman wants is on you, especially if you didn't ask. In fact, even if you did ask these questions, it could be argued that the woman could have felt pressured or obligated to saying yes regardless if that was your intention. So by this theory you have to understand not just the surface level response but read her emotions and feelings. And if the guy is autistic? Well he shouldn't be trying to have sex with people.

[ey****]

42 minutes ago, BlushingFlush said:

I'm simply talking in strict legal terms about not implicating yourself for an allegation that could be a lot more heinous than what you've done. They say the truth will set you free but often times it's the opposite.

I think there's points we've both been a little guilty of oversimplifying this.

And, honestly - someone who potentially was being pushy and then backed off and allowed someone to leave without a struggle is never going to be prosecuted for something they hadn't done.  It is extremely difficult to get a conviction in sexual cases because the onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant knowingly shouldn't do this and did anyway.   It probably wouldn't make it to court because solicitors don't like taking cases they know they can't win.

47 minutes ago, BlushingFlush said:

But how often do people really understand everything that's going to happen in a scene - like, the way every little thing is going to feel, all of the things that are going to happen. And if we're talking about dom/sub relationships, we could be talking about a roleplay that could be taking place over days, weeks or months. Like keeping someone in chastity for example.

And this is important and speaking purely Dominant and submissive.  

Informed Consent is a good basis and a better one than 'enthusiastic' - and yes, there's a lot within a scene where people have this wonderful idea in their head but, well, canes really hurt when they strike.  CBT can be quite ***ful.  *** can be quite distressing. Human ashtray can be unpleasant and shit (probably) really does taste like shit.

But then this is also why we go back to safewords and the understanding consent can be withdrawn - that the knowledge within here is that it's important to understand these and that, especially if it's somehting the sub has not experienced before - that this might not be as they imagined.

The first time I did watersports the lady said she wasn't going to make me drink and if I chose to drink she wouldn't be mad if I spat it out.  I couldn't really drink as I was static, so she kinda said next time to move forward if I wanted to drink - so the next time, again, she said to back away or spit it out if it was unpleasant.  

I did a little breath play with someone who'd never done breath play before and we've played together a couple of times and the first time it was only really minor - but the second time I had her face covered with gloved hands - I monitored her reactions and found that, yes, this was going to work for her.

So, yes - I think it's important to know the other person's experience so that it seems enthusiastic but I can go in being aware of her experience.

Of course, it's inevitable - this whole thing carries risks and assumptions - which is why it's important that if one person is new to an idea, that the other really isn't and/or it's something researched together to increase understanding.

And this is important - it's important for you to understand the other persons lack of knowledge, understanding, experience, etc. in order to adjust accordingly. 

There's no perfect play to this - but there's more that can be done together which minimises risk of things going wrong.

Sometimes we blame subs for jumping into play too quickly (arguably fair) but someone else also agreed to play with them despite this.......

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, eyemblacksheep said:

And, honestly - someone who potentially was being pushy and then backed off and allowed someone to leave without a struggle is never going to be prosecuted for something they hadn't done.  It is extremely difficult to get a conviction in sexual cases because the onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant knowingly shouldn't do this and did anyway.   It probably wouldn't make it to court because solicitors don't like taking cases they know they can't win.

I mean, this does depend on that person's words though. If they admit, "ok, hands up - I was being pushy" that is in many ways an admission of guilt (which is evidence after all, unlike other sexual *** cases where no evidence is available whatsoever and it just becomes "he said she said" - this time the man has implicated himself in some way). A prosecutor could (theoretically) instruct their client to then press the allegation that not only was this person pushy but they had malicious intent - i.e. was going to that woman and refuse to let her leave. Now, I know many women would not press a claim like that but there are women who exist that can be like this. The truth is that the second you have made any sort of admission of guilt for something that happened behind closed doors - no matter how small - the case is now open to wild interpretation of how far that guilt extends because nobody but the alleged predator and alleged victim can see what goes on behind closed doors.

And actually, even admitting to yourself that you were guilty of something while useful for personal growth and to prevent a repeat of a mistake can make it much more difficult to keep your lips sealed - i.e. to not babble purely out of guilt. I mean, I can't post links unfortunately but you can look it up yourself the time MMA fighter Conor McGregor was interviewed about punching an old man in a bar in Dublin, he completely stumbled over words here and apologised about things that "went down" and said "there was no excuse for what happened" but not once did he explicitly say "I punched an old man in a bar in Dublin" in spite of video evidence that he did just that, then made an analogy about a fish and a whale.

And because of this people were saying it wasn't an authentic apology which who knows, maybe it wasn't. But from a strictly legal perspective it's kind of obvious why he didn't want to implicate himself so directly at such an early stage - people were saying the apology was just to protect his brand of whiskey but actually I think it was to secure an effective plea bargain with the public prosecutors. Either way, it's something he's never going to live down and there will always be people on his social media feeds posting the video clip where he punched an old man in the side of the head. Which - I'm not saying he doesn't deserve that! But then, trial and punishment is supposed to happen through a court hearing right, where both versions of events can be heard in full detail - not social media, where group think determines what the events must have been and who precisely did what?

But yeah anyway you mentioned that the scenario doesn't go into full detail and I mean, that is because it is just a hypothetical scenario at the end of the day, so the details could be whatever you or I decide they must be. I mean for example, we still have no idea if for example McGregor had any history with the old man, what might have been said to him or done to him by the old man. Not saying these things would have justified McGregor's actions whatsoever and McGregor himself said the back story didn't matter - he was in the wrong, end of, he said. But still if there was a wider context to the story, it's not going to be heard through social media unless anything else gets leaked (seems doubtful).

In any case, I'm going to give a cheesy "life can be a bit like..." analogy here and say it can be very much like a ***ting. If you're not experienced you might get all of the lines and angles and proportions and everything very wrong. It could turn out very ugly indeed - or very beautiful. And actually stunning beauty can be a lot more intimidating then let's say something that's just a bit ugly/imperfect but in a very mediocre way. Sublime is the word for it, I believe. You could also have a work of pure beauty and ruin it all by over-analysing, smudging out all the lines e.g. by trying to get light or shading "better", I can't remember what the word is for this now, we'll just call it over-analysing or smudging lines. Something I've been prone to do with many of my personal relationships and decisions, unfortunately. Perhaps it's the thrill of what could go wrong that draws us to this.

 

Quote

But then this is also why we go back to safewords and the understanding consent can be withdrawn

So, I mean a sub could withdraw from using a safe word for many reasons. Like, they don't want to "disappoint" the dominant. Or perhaps even they are slightly afraid to use the safe word, or embarrassed or ashamed to "give up". Or maybe it is difficult to express the safe word correctly, for example if you are breathing very heavily in an intense sexual act that is difficult to say anything. Or if the submissive is gagged for instance. I mean the more ambitious the plan the dominant has for the sub, the more difficult it is to prepare for what could go wrong, right? And then if the planning is purely meticulous and something still goes wrong is the dominant culpable? Quite possibly, in fact.

I think we can imagine in certain scenarios it could be difficult to be either party and this brings me back to the ***ting analogy because when you "***t" a certain scenario you don't necessarily have a complete idea of what's going to happen and how the scenario is going to turn out. And planning doesn't necessarily trump improvisation, I mean sticking dogmatically to a plan in spite of unexpected variables that change the outcome of what you had initially intended could make things a lot worse. It's like they say: you can plan a pretty picnic but you can't predict the weather. "Oh, but what about umbrellas ... tents ... a bucket to throw water out the tent ... a servant to carry everything we might need ... sun lotion in case it get's too hot ..." you catch my drift.

Sometimes, things are just going to go wrong no matter what and there will always be people that believe a party is culpable when that does happen. Like I said, life can get pretty ugly, pretty fast and we can try to be stoic but there isn't always a plan that's going to protect us from the worst. So how do we react to that - eye for an eye? Make sure people are held responsible to an extreme degree, even forcing them to endure punishments that are beyond proportional to the offence? Charlie Brooker has had a thing or two to say about that, or rather his show Black Mirror let's you make your mind up. I won't say too much about it but "White Christmas" is a very thought-provoking episode and the idea that in the future our minds could even be trapped inside a digital device forever as some sort of punitive measure. Makes you think very carefully about what you say and do.

 

Quote

Sometimes we blame subs for jumping into play too quickly (arguably fair) but someone else also agreed to play with them despite this.......

I fully agree that dominant parties often need to be held accountable too. The only thing I worry about is that the idea "victim blaming is wrong, wrong, wrong" is that sometimes when a person gets into something, their head too deep below water, it isn't necessarily that another person needs to be held fully accountable for what they at the end of the day agreed to. Or even, gave reason for someone else to believe they were enthusiastic about participating in some other form - like a nod of the head (which when you think about it could mean a lot of different things), or an "uh-huh", or a simple smile - if, for example the individual was mute and could not verbally express "I consent to this".

Edited July 22, 2020 by Deleted Member

[ey****]

10 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

I was being pushy" that is in many ways an admission of guilt. A prosecutor could (theoretically) instruct their client to then press the allegation that not only was this person pushy but they had malicious intent

They could - but - it'd never pass.  That if there was intent he wouldn't have backed off and let her leave.

10 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

So, I mean a sub could withdraw from using a safe word for many reasons. Like, they don't want to "disappoint" the dominant.

Absolutely.  And this is something that is also important to communicate.  That safeword use should be encouraged if someone is new and that things can always be revisited another day.   The Dominant can also retrospectively check things were OK during aftercare.

But, honestly, I've seen the dramas over "She didn't say stop" and the people tend to side with the Dominant in these scenarios.

10 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

Or maybe it is difficult to express the safe word correctly, for example if you are breathing very heavily in an intense sexual act that is difficult to say anything. Or if the submissive is gagged for instance.

Something that should also be considered including non verbal safewords.   i.e dropping a set of keys.   If you leave your sub unable to physically safeword then there is a problem.

10 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

The only thing I worry about is that the idea "victim blaming is wrong, wrong, wrong" is that sometimes when a person gets into something, their head too deep below water, it isn't necessarily that another person needs to be held fully accountable for what they at the end of the day agreed to.

You can support someone who got in to deep without blaming them.  

[Deleted Member]

9 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

That if there was intent he wouldn't have backed off and let her leave.

Well, for all the prosecution know, she escaped and he didn't let her leave at all. That's what I'm saying: a small implication of guilt to one thing could end up being viewed as a full confession more or less by a jury, media, etc.

 

Quote

Absolutely.  And this is something that is also important to communicate.  That safeword use should be encouraged if someone is new and that things can always be revisited another day.   The Dominant can also retrospectively check things were OK during aftercare.

Sure but aftercare is by definition after the fact. If a breach of consent has happened, that's it - the vase is broken, so to speak. It's not going to be the same now.

 

Quote

But, honestly, I've seen the dramas over "She didn't say stop" and the people tend to side with the Dominant in these scenarios.

Yeah but people who side with the dominant party are mostly seen as apologists in the left wing media and to lots of people in the public, some who might carry a grudge for that kind of thing. I don't think it's a "safe" argument to make at all, especially if your friend circles aren't all in the majority alt-right Trumpsters and Brexiters for example. Otherwise, I guess you can say that sort of thing pretty freely.

 

Quote

Something that should also be considered including non verbal safewords.   i.e dropping a set of keys.   If you leave your sub unable to physically safeword then there is a problem.

Generally, I have to agree on that one actually. I think some might argue, e.g. they could understand what a sub was mouthing with the gag on earlier. Or that they thought it would be obvious if a sub withdrew consent by their non-verbal behaviours but at the time their moans seemed to be from pleasure/ecstacy rather than displease. I don't know - that's how some might see it.

 

Quote

You can support someone who got in to deep without blaming them.  

You mean without blaming the person alleged to have breached consent?

[ey****]

10 minutes ago, BlushingFlush said:

Well, for all the prosecution know, she escaped and he didn't let her leave at all. That's what I'm saying: a small implication of guilt to one thing could end up being viewed as a full confession more or less by a jury, media, etc.

they would look for signs of a struggle - they would overly analyse her story for how she managed to escape.

11 minutes ago, BlushingFlush said:

Sure but aftercare is by definition after the fact. If a breach of consent has happened, that's it - the vase is broken, so to speak. It's not going to be the same now.

I think I touched above about differences between boundary pushing, breaches of consent, mistakes, so on - the Dominant knows if they've broken consent.  But, our scenarios are getting crosswired

I thought the scenario we were in on this part of thing was - sub consents, doesn't actually realise what the experience will be like - so in my version of this scenario the Dominant has tried the sub with something, possibly a little and is now asking in the aftermath if this is something they'd do again or do more of.

14 minutes ago, BlushingFlush said:

You mean without blaming the person alleged to have breached consent?

Yep.

So - if you know as someone neutral to the scenario this was simply a "shit happens" scenario - and now shit has happened and it needs dealt with.  

Now, also I think - just because someone is at fault also doesn't mean there needs to be consequences above "don't do that again, for fucks sake" a scenario a few years ago had had someone who'd had had access to the venue prior to the event opening had tied up a sub in the dungeon.  When people came into the event, they didn't go straight to the dungeon - and so far through somebody thought they heard something, went down stairs and saw her distressed and tied up - so immediately took her down.   The fault of the Dominant here was leaving her tied and unattended, the fault of the sub was agreeing to this in the first place.  Neither of them probably aware of the risks associated.  

In this case, actually, the Dominant should have known better - but - simply the lady is distressed and what she doesn't need is "why did you agree to this?" the two of them need a "right, don't do this again" and using this as an example of shit not to do.

-

What I'm going to add for context also.  I'm someone who has been very active in the public scene for the past 7 years.  I've been involved in both play events and in munches and have such met with other organisers.  There's a lot we agree on and disagree on.  There are individuals who are blanket not welcome - but pretty much all of these have an actual criminal record now (even if they didn't at the time) and none of which to do with actual play or allegations (two involve minors.   one was an *** - they admitted to the *** which led to a police caution rather than anything more severe) there are people who have been removed from events for behaviour, but most have been allowed back under one angle or another.  There are people who have allegations against them but usually from something that happened in private play.   Because of that - there's sometimes a vibe of "it didn't happen on our premise so we didn't really see it, it's one person word against the other so we can't really take action without evidence"
And of course, it splits opinions and has over the years caused many arguments online - but it rarely translates to much.  Of course what tends to happen is that people make choices of which events to attend based on who is or isn't welcome there, for sure, but often it becomes a case that it often boils down to staying at home, or having to share a space and stay away from each other.

And, there are people who are somewhat questionable who admitted to levels of wrongdoing which has been met with a "he's learnt and he's sorry" - some of which really wouldn't stand up in court and that there is at least one lady who was told "OK, get him at least a police caution and we will ban him" who went to the police and was talked out of pursuing it because a kind of "We can't caution as things stand because xyz, so you'd have to go via a court and persuade a jury" - so her then dropping this made people do the "well, obviously she's lying otherwise she would have continued" when, simply, she didn't have the emotional energy to go through with the stresses of a case to try to persuade a judge and jury on something they might not entirely understand.

Having online support doesn't necessarily result in action - and I say this as someone who often wishes it would.  

[Deleted Member]

4 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

they would look for signs of a struggle - they would overly analyse her story for how she managed to escape.

She could just say she didn't go to the police straight away as she was traumatised, so the bruises went away and the guy had the chance to clean up the apartment in the mean time, including the vase that got broken, etc., etc. Meanwhile, he's already admitted to being "pushy".

 

Quote

I thought the scenario we were in on this part of thing was - sub consents, doesn't actually realise what the experience will be like - so in my version of this scenario the Dominant has tried the sub with something, possibly a little and is now asking in the aftermath if this is something they'd do again or do more of.

Ah right, so I was talking about an experience in which the sub believes because they did not enjoy the experience they were not as fully informed about what it would be like as they imagine they could have been. So from the submissive's point of view, it could be that there was a breach of consent there.

 

Quote

Yep.

So - if you know as someone neutral to the scenario this was simply a "shit happens" scenario - and now shit has happened and it needs dealt with.  

If you don't blame the dominant when a submissive implies a breach of boundaries occurred and in addition to that say something like "shit happens", people might say that you're support was not authentic or that worse, you're excusing the behaviour of the dominant by inferring that it was inavoidable somehow or that it was something that could not have been blamed on any particular party (including the dominant). Some people would say the only way to offer helpful support would be to say to the submissive, something like "that is so awful something like that happened to you, appalling behaviour - inexcusable" otherwise they might even see you as gas lighting the submissive.

 

Quote

When people came into the event, they didn't go straight to the dungeon - and so far through somebody thought they heard something, went down stairs and saw her distressed and tied up - so immediately took her down.   The fault of the Dominant here was leaving her tied and unattended, the fault of the sub was agreeing to this in the first place.  Neither of them probably aware of the risks associated.  

I mean in a way they were both irresponsible not just considering the impact this would have on the sub but the impact it would have on the people who would have found the sub like that. 

 

Quote

"well, obviously she's lying otherwise she would have continued"

Yeah, I strongly dislike hearing that type of argument. Plenty of people trying to argue like I do that consent can be a "blurred lines" type of subject often make intellectually fallacious or offensive talking points which do the argument as a whole a disservice - because of the association by notoriety. Which is why I'm very careful with tone when I approach this subject as I'm aware how easily statements can be misconstrued or associated with unpopular talking points.

It's usually fine and consequence free to say that kind of thing if you're buddies are all alt-right Trumpsters & Brexiters however virtually nobody in my circles of personally known acquaintances are like that. So in my circles a slip of the tongue too many can make you unpopular fast, you see.

 

Quote

when, simply, she didn't have the emotional energy to go through with the stresses of a case to try to persuade a judge and jury on something they might not entirely understand.

I get that. I don't think it's something a reasonable person would be unable to sympathise with.

 

Quote

Having online support doesn't necessarily result in action - and I say this as someone who often wishes it would.  

Well online support can lead to ostracisation of a particular individual. I mean you start getting people shoving cameras in someone's face, spreading word about who he is in that person's community and place of work, you could do more damage than you'd imagine. It's just a case of building momentum in that online support someone receives.

[ey****]

4 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

She could just say she didn't go to the police straight away as she was traumatised, so the bruises went away and the guy had the chance to clean up the apartment in the mean time, including the vase that got broken, etc., etc. Meanwhile, he's already admitted to being "pushy".

But then there's no actual evidence at all.

The conviction rate isn't low because most accusations aren't real.  Conviction rates are low because it's very hard to get a conviction.

4 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

I was talking about an experience in which the sub believes because they did not enjoy the experience

Not enjoying something doesn't really constitute to any form of breach.  But this is also what I mean by making things part of aftercare, or even ongoing as part of a scene if you know it's new to them (i.e. someone wants to try caning, has never been caned, you might give them half a dozen with an easier cane rather than 60 with a dragon cane and see how they feel about continuing or discuss after) 

4 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

It's usually fine and consequence free to say that kind of thing if you're buddies are all alt-right Trumpsters & Brexiters however virtually nobody in my circles of personally known acquaintances are like that. So in my circles a slip of the tongue too many can make you unpopular fast, you see.

you've said this previous and this is a very dangerous line of politics you are getting into.  Firstly, my circle of friends is generally left leaning, but the community on the whole is mixed.  

We can have a house party where we have complete control over who is welcome - we cannot control who is or is not permitted into other events. 

My point is - it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what my friends think.   There's both the wider community and the wider authorities that are not going to back us up on what we think.

-

However, there's a few things where I'm getting mixed vibes.  So you're saying within your post that if you don't support the victim you're "alt-right" but if you do support then you're ostracising someone over what could be a misunderstanding.

I'm not sure where you're coming from.

 

[Deleted Member]

6 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

But then there's no actual evidence at all.

The conviction rate isn't low because most accusations aren't real.  Conviction rates are low because it's very hard to get a conviction.

Well the only evidence in the case would be an admission that the guy did something he wasn't supposed to. She would have a small piece of evidence but he wouldn't have any evidence defending himself.

As for conviction rates, I wasn't providing any sort of theory or statement as to why they're low. That's not for me to speculate. I should mention that conviction rates are actually high when a case goes to court though. Some might say that's because defendants are most likely to be guilty when a case is enabled to go through court. Again, not for me to speculate.

 

Quote

Not enjoying something doesn't really constitute to any form of breach.  But this is also what I mean by making things part of aftercare, or even ongoing as part of a scene if you know it's new to them (i.e. someone wants to try caning, has never been caned, you might give them half a dozen with an easier cane rather than 60 with a dragon cane and see how they feel about continuing or discuss after) 

Well the point to introduce enthusiastic consent is to protect a woman who clams up and doesn't say or do anything when a guy tries to have sex with her. The argument is that just because she didn't resist or clearly say "no" does not mean that she consented, was enthusiastic about the sex or that the guy didn't know it was ok. My reason for introducing a BDSM scenario was to point out this could have some carry over to BDSM situations where we tend to assume because there was a discussion about most of the stuff that would happen meant the submissive was enthusiastically consenting at the time it did.

 

Quote

you've said this previous and this is a very dangerous line of politics you are getting into.  Firstly, my circle of friends is generally left leaning, but the community on the whole is mixed.  

We can have a house party where we have complete control over who is welcome - we cannot control who is or is not permitted into other events. 

My point is - it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what my friends think.   There's both the wider community and the wider authorities that are not going to back us up on what we think.

I suppose most of this is speculation. However, I've been observing ideological trends on social media and in real life and I've noticed a greater sense of control people that are empathetic, communicative and with liberal values have over shaping the world. People that have more old fashioned conservative beliefs are being increasingly regarded with less seriousness and I think in coming years will find it harder to fit into a changing world.

Of course, these are mostly good changes, I just personally worry about certain people that will find it hard to adapt because lifestyle choices they made in the past were just starkly different and almost alien to the way society is progressing. You could find a lot of people will be left on the fringes and feel increasingly alienated in the modern world. There's more to be said but it's not really for me to articulate these changes objectively.

 

Quote

However, there's a few things where I'm getting mixed vibes.  So you're saying within your post that if you don't support the victim you're "alt-right"

No, rather I said there are victim blaming sentiments that often come from alt-right communities in discussions about consent I wouldn't want to personally be associated with. I think you're confusing me confusing an antecedent to imply a precedent here, if that's the term for it - i.e. that if some people say something not in support of a victim happen to be alt-right then that must be true of anyone who makes a similar sort of argument and that was precisely the sort of association I said we should avoid.

 

Quote

if you do support then you're ostracising someone over what could be a misunderstanding.

Well it's not that I think all support for someone that was a victim of something means ostracising an individual where others might be inclined to subscribe blame. Rather, I was pointing out some might say if you don't at blame to that person, you're not really supporting the victim in an authentic sense.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Deleted Member

[Th****]

There is the most wonderful video created by Thames Valley Police called Consent is Tea.

The script was written by Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess.

As it is freely available I will reproduce the script hear as it perfectly illustrates the simplicity of consent. With all credit to the above of course.

 

 

 

• You say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go, “OMG, f*ck yes, I would f*cking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!” Then you know they want a cup of tea.

 

• If you say, “Hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.

 

• If they say, “No, thank you,” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?

 

• They might say, “Yes, please, that’s kind of you,” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.

 

• If they are ***, don’t make them tea. *** people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?” because they are ***.

 

• Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now ***. You should just put the tea down, make sure the *** person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea.

 

• If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe.  Because *** people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

 

• If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last Saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and *** them to drink it going, “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,” or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.”

 

And that guys is pretty much consent in a nutshell.  The video is even funnier.

[Deleted Member]

10 hours ago, Thebian said:

There is the most wonderful video created by Thames Valley Police called Consent is Tea.

Well, actually if you'd read the OP, you'd find sexual consent is not quite the same as tea at all actually . Can be a fair bit more complicated than that, especially if we're including not just intercourse, but flirting, touching, foreplay and other kinds of sexual/romantic engagement that can vary according to location & "extra" circumstances like alcohol, inexperience. communication difficulties, prostitution, asexuality, one night stands, marital sex and so on and so forth.

[Th****]

5 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

Well, actually if you'd read the OP, you'd find sexual consent is not quite the same as tea at all actually . Can be a fair bit more complicated than that, especially if we're including not just intercourse, but flirting, touching, foreplay and other kinds of sexual/romantic engagement that can vary according to location & "extra" circumstances like alcohol, inexperience. communication difficulties, prostitution, asexuality, one night stands, marital sex and so on and so forth.

Oddly I read the OP in its entirety and also the comments that followed it.

That was a some what light hearted response.

So the serious side, it is my belief, this is as a Dominant male in regards to lifestyle activities both sexual and non-sexual that the paradoxes presented in the OP are for the most part false paradoxes.

While it may be said that there are issues with consent when dealing with sex workers that may make it impossible to tell the difference between consent and ***. This is in fact not a paradox. 

If you want clear informed active consent then it just means that you are unlikely to be able to find that in a sex worker with any certainty.

As for the how much alcohol is to much alcohol, prior to consent you may well want to apply the same rules that would be applied to the driver of a vehicle or just say none at all. This again is not a paradox, the fact you go to a club, have a few drinks and then want to play does not cause a paradox to *Poof* into existence. 

On the contrary it means the rule of common sense stays the same and you keep it in your pants. If either person's judgement is effected it is a dangerous situation. The use of the phrase paradox here is merely an excuse for side stepping what the majority of the lifestyle recognises as good practise regarding consent.

I am rarely a person that sees things in black and white, with the exception of consent.

Regarding the issue of a disability making it difficult to negotiate consent, I will say first there is no excuse for not gaining consent. Not being comfortable, psychologically able, even physically able must not and cannot exempt you from gaining consent prior to engaging in sexual conduct. At any level.

May sound harsh but I have severe epilepsy and after serious convulsions all my motor skills return and I am fully physically back to normal but the last thing to change is the most awful slur. I am almost unintelligible except to those I am closest to. I do not see this period as a point where as I am unable to ask for consent nor do I should be exempt from those expectations in some strange way. 

This again is best resolved by keeping it in my pants, this really should not have to be explained.

So what if you ask someone and they seem to quite like the idea but then seem unsure?

Is it just me that sees that fully informed active consent means you will sit down with the person and double check they 100% understand what you are intending to do, and if they still have doubts then fine.... They can go away and think about it and get back to you if and when they are sure they want to try it.

Again no paradoxes here, you give them the time and information they need to reach a conclusion. In the mean time we keep it in our pants.

As for your point about someone being only a year under the age of consent... You can probably guess it is more diplomatic for me not to comment.

Obviously it goes without saying that when people come to the table with under lying psychological issues you have to be doubly sure  that the consent you received is not only fully informed but also you have a duty of care to ensure that it has been fully understood in a conversation between equals to minimise any *** *** that may be at play. This makes active consent even more important.

If you are not sure do not touch.

This is not rocket science it is the fundamental difference between BDSM and ***.

One point I will give you though mistakes will occur a Dominant will misread a signal or will either not hear a safe word or it was said while the sub was in non vocal head space. Whatever the reason a misstep like this will breach consent. So best get a large order of humility and practise the apologising.

 

Are you sure you don't prefer tea? 

 

[Deleted Member]

11 hours ago, Thebian said:

Oddly I read the OP in its entirety and also the comments that followed it.

That was a some what light hearted response.

Well now I'm feeling less s.n.a.p.p.y than when I posted that, I can explain my thoughts a bit better. I actually saw the "consent is tea" video some years ago and actually it was that video that got me thinking "actually it's not quite like this at all" and like the world in general can be quite complex/confusing. In fact sex is such a physical, intimate kind of connection/dance between two humans, it involves communication on many levels - the physical/non-verbal, and language and so on.

A cup of tea actually on the other hand is generally fairly simple. Unless you have MS and require say a caregiver to help you take it, you can just drink it on your own. It doesn't require things be done to one person like penetration, or things be done by both together is actually, probably, a better, saner way to think about it. But either way, it's an ongoing dance/form of communication that happens on different levels. So breaking away from the "consent is like tea" sort of mindset, engaging in the more philosophical way of looking at it is like forward thinking for me. Doing it the other way sort of reduces it. Sure simplicity can be a very good thing.

But because it's often like that, people tend to prefer to just think "the world is a simple thing", or even a misinterpretation of Occam's razor here - "the simplest explanation tends to be  correct". But actually when you have a world that's so complex, many different languages, many different ideologies, psychologies and ways of relating to each other - a simple solution can be both effective at cutting through all of that but also a reductive/blunt instrument. Like a blade that needs sharpening or to come in different sizes, different delicate angles for different jobs.

 

11 hours ago, Thebian said:

This is in fact not a paradox.

The paradox is hard to define or pinpoint as a paradox, comes from realising enthusiastic consent has to be given freely from a rational thinking person but none of us are really free or rational thinking. It could even be a "dominant" party is used or manipulated psychologically for the pleasure of someone we would normally/stereotypically see as "submissive". For example, cases where a female teacher has had intercourse with an athletic male student have sometimes been perceived like this by the media. If the roles are murkier than what we initially perceive on the face of things is anyone really giving free or rational consent in the way we typically understand when we try to bluntly apply Occam's razor in a bid to perceive the world - "simplification" or else the theory is dismissed as just a convolution without any real world application?

 

11 hours ago, Thebian said:

As for the how much alcohol is to much alcohol, prior to consent you may well want to apply the same rules that would be applied to the driver of a vehicle or just say none at all. This again is not a paradox, the fact you go to a club, have a few drinks and then want to play does not cause a paradox to *Poof* into existence. 

Yet a majority of vanilla relationships have sex with alcohol included at some point and many, many people consider their relations with one another safe, sane, happy and consensual when this goes on. So then I don't know what your saying here - that they don't know what they're doing? That they've perceived things wrong and their partner included? That you can compare a scenario like driving a truck drunk like it would be the same in circumstance, principle and application of theory to something that for many people would be totally different and have a completely different experience?

It's like the same thing with "consent - it's as simple as tea" patronising: any time you try to say "sex, it's just like ...!" you're warping what could be any situation from it's contextual logic and scene and avoiding dealing with all the swamp of context and settings that could be radically different. You don't really get to make a statement like "x is just y, really" in real life and get away with that because it's rarely ever true. Everything is apples and oranges in this world.

 

Quote

Again no paradoxes here, you give them the time and information they need to reach a conclusion. In the mean time we keep it in our pants.

I mean, think about what that actually means (the first sentence). It means many different things to different people. You have to use your own perception and interpretation of logic to decide what is "enough" time or information for anyone to reach a given conclusion. What could be a rational expression of a conclusion for you, me or anyone else could be taking place in a way that's anything but. Like I said earlier people can be exploited, but we don't always know they're being exploited/manipulated, or we're not always aware that's us doing things. Things can appear straight forward, or simple & clear to us when truth is they're anything but.

The context we need to interpret all these things like time and information and decision can be almost entirely subjective and relative to a situation. Nobody get's to say this is straightforward because we don't even know what "this thing" is that we're describing. There could be a myriad of events taking place vaguely like this right now that are all also very, very different in many ways.

 

11 hours ago, Thebian said:

it has been fully understood in a conversation between equals to minimise any *** *** that may be at play. This makes active consent even more important.

If you are not sure do not touch.

This is all something discussed in the OP - why it might not even be possible to have such a conversation, why such a conversation itself could be seen as a breach of boundaries, why a conversation could lead to a feeling or interpretation of perceived "clarity" but be anything but. The language and communication with sex doesn't just happen in a literal conversation on consent. Like I said at the top of this post, the whole mating dance is a type of communication and conversation from beginning to end regardless what form that takes. You don't get to say to other people what version of communication should be happening like there is a right or a wrong way to go about this because they might even be doing things "better" than you.

 

11 hours ago, Thebian said:

Are you sure you don't prefer tea? 

I love tea. It's not about what I prefer or don't prefer though. It's about what life is or isn't and it is not "that thing".

Edited August 2, 2020 by Deleted Member

[Th****]

18 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

Yet a majority of vanilla relationships have sex with alcohol included at some point and many, many people consider their relations with one another safe, sane, happy and consensual when this goes on. So then I don't know what your saying here - that they don't know what they're doing? That they've perceived things wrong and their partner included? That you can compare a scenario like driving a truck drunk like it would be the same in circumstance, principle and application of theory to something that for many people would be totally different and have a completely different experience?

 

18 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

The language and communication with sex doesn't just happen in a literal conversation on consent. Like I said at the top of this post, the whole mating dance is a type of communication and conversation from beginning to end regardless what form that takes. You don't get to say to other people what version of communication should be happening like there is a right or a wrong way to go about this because they might even be doing things "better" than you.

 

18 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

It could even be a "dominant" party is used or manipulated psychologically for the pleasure of someone we would normally/stereotypically see as "submissive". For example, cases where a female teacher has had intercourse with an athletic male student have sometimes been perceived like this by the media.

 

18 hours ago, BlushingFlush said:

It doesn't require things be done to one person like penetration, or things be done by both together is actually, probably, a better, saner way to think about it. But either way, it's an ongoing dance/form of communication that happens on different levels. So breaking away from the "consent is like tea" sort of mindset, engaging in the more philosophical way of looking at it is like forward thinking for me. Doing it the other way sort of reduces it. Sure simplicity can be a very good thing.

*Holds head in hands*