Consent .

[Deleted Member]

 

Personal understanding of CONSENT.  

This seems to be over used without a true understanding of the meaning and the true impact that this can have if two parties have different views on what consent actually entails or means the them personally .  This has moved on to being a definition of ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT. 

Consent defined as “ Consent is broadly defined as "free agreement" or "free and voluntary agreement".

It essentially means a person must have the full capacity to make a decision about whether they want to engage in an act, without ***, *** or deception.

All parties must not be under the influence of any *** or alcohol and be mentally proficient to understand what is being discussed and agreed on. 

But this is in some ways a grey vision because what happens if two parties have a different understanding of the vocabulary which can happen with age, or understanding or one party is impatient or even if any part has just been miss-received which is way easier than you would think. 

This brings us to ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT. 

Enthusiastic consent is, in many ways, self-explanatory. Consent that encourages people to make sure the person they're about to have an interaction with wants to be there.

"All you need to say is, 'do you want to be here? And very clearly, 'Do you want to be doing what we're doing?'
"And if it's not an enthusiastic yes, then it's not enough."
"We must be capable of reading body language and facial expressions, understanding the moment and seeing through any kind of *** of failure after all at times we have all consented to something that we weren’t totally happy about to avoid displeasing or disappointment on self or others . 

Total clear explanation is required confirming that what is said is understood.  If you feel it isn’t in anyway don’t do it. 

And one huge point to remember.

CONSENT CAN BE REVOKED AT ANYTIME.

So this would be confirmed every time at every interaction although in some cases this would vary within a solid dynamic but any new act or interaction should be covered never taken for granted.  

The Law 
No Impact play, ***, degrading interaction, bondage or such is actually legal. This can leave the player wide open and a written contact will have no effect whatsoever and has absolutely no bearing at all. 
 

Remember that the Police can and will prosecute without your Consent or request if a friend or colleague sees any marks or such and feels obliged to report this as a suspicion of *** there’s nothing you can do about it , no claim of consent no contract, you can find your self on the wrong side of the law.  And no one involved will have any control over that. 
 

MrC. 

[Deleted Member]

Agreed. Biggest issue at work is getting staff to tell the difference between compliance and consent - they aren't the same!
The best tool i've found to explain consent is the cup of tea analogy

[Deleted Member]

MrC . Yes I totally understand and agree with the risks of being involved in bdsm. Sadly like a lot of communities that face the challenges of mixing our lives with people who have little understanding of our culture . My family and friends know that I’m a pervert , they very rarely ask questions because they are worried and disturbed by it ,even though they accept it. The truth of the matter is I share some of the worries they might have concerning the dangers of practising SM sex. We have to be so careful and my God do we have to trust each other! .As you mentioned MrC it only takes one person to make it their business to feel justified in reporting ***. So we have to tread carefully and be sensible and sensitive to each other so that we can enjoy our precious time together and try to avoid getting on the wrong side of the law.

[Deleted Member]

Great post, @MrCopolo. It's important to remind people that much of what we do is still against the law and can lead to prosecution for *** or Grievous Bodily Harm, which can lead to a prison sentence (UK law). I just noticed this also includes 'psychiatric ***' though I have no idea how this would be proved. 

I think the term Enthusiastic Consent is awesome.
Enthusiastic Consent is sexy. It can become part of play: 
"Do you want me to do XXX to you?"
"Yes, I do."
"Do you want me to keep doing this to you?" etc. 
 

Some knobheads, I mean Dominants, want to feel like they're coercing the other party into doing something that they wouldn't choose to do. But it's time for them to grow up and get over their pathetic need for ***/control. 

The most important point is that consent can be revoked at any time. 

I would not want someone I have dominated at any time to feel they have regrets about their involvement with me or to feel that I pushed them into accepting play or discipline that they weren't enthusiastic about receiving. But I can't even say, hands down, for sure, that this is the case. I just know that I'll be more diligent about it in future. 

[Leisa]

I love the definition and concept of enthusiastic consent. Even the slightest hesitation should be perceived and non consent and that consent has been withdrawn. I will keep your post in mind for future play whatever role I’m engaged in. I would not want transient consent either playing with a sub or as the sub playing with a Dom.

[Deleted Member]

On 2/21/2021 at 5:18 PM, MrCopolo said:

The Law 

No Impact play, ***, degrading interaction, bondage or such is actually legal. This can leave the player wide open and a written contact will have no effect whatsoever and has absolutely no bearing at all. 
 

Remember that the Police can and will prosecute without your Consent or request if a friend or colleague sees any marks or such and feels obliged to report this as a suspicion of *** there’s nothing you can do about it , no claim of consent no contract, you can find your self on the wrong side of the law.  And no one involved will have any control over that. 
 

MrC. 

Are you sure on this? My understanding was that impact play so long as the person had consented AND that the impact play had not broken the skin was not illegal in the UK. That impact play only became illegal if the skin had been broken, i.e cuts at which point it became Actual Bodily Harm, etc and illegal even if the person had consented. Hence on this point the law comes in that no person can agree to themselves being physically injured in the form of cuts or worse even if they consented. The one exception to this is of course Sports that BDSM is apparently not.

 

So a person that has consented to impact play but just has some red marks and/or light bruising is apparently from what I have read perfectly legal. Unless I am wrong on this? I certainly feel it would be useful to have a definite legal answer on this, perhaps this website has an article on this or another for the UK. From what I could make out from googling the subject we as much the same as the US on this but of course our law isn't exactly the same as the US or its component States.

 

Non-consent is of course illegal. I think gaining written consent by email and correspondence that indicates that the other party is aware and willing is a good idea as a starting point. Of course consent can be withdrawn at any time but that can lead to some ambiguity on both sides as to whether it clearly was. That and it can lead to the dominant being open to false accusations for whatever reason if the submissive claims they did not consent when they did.

 

A lot of this along with other reasons is why as soon as lockdown is lifted I will be looking into a relationship abroad in a country more friendly to BDSM activities. There can be a lot of feminist values in the UK and I find it difficult to trust the women here or the system. I think that consent can be withdrawn verbally at any time while reasonable can just lead to dispute over whether it was or not and the dominant is likely to be seen as guilty in the case of it being unknown by the police to my mind.

 

I'm just into light impact play along with a few other kinks so theoretically I would not breach the law. There seems to be many here though with a long list of activities that they are apparently up for whether doing it, or taking it and so theoretically they could be taking a big risk I guess of falling foul of the law. Now it's not that I'm obsessed of being on the right side of the law but let's face it most of us have jobs to hold down and losing those jobs over a BDSM situation not going well is probably something most of us could do without.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Deleted Member

[Wo****]

Taken from Wikipedia...

British law does not recognize the possibility of consenting to actual bodily harm. Such acts are illegal, even between consenting adults, and these laws are en***d (R v Brown being the leading case).[9] R v Brown dismissed the defence of consent, meaning that the men charged of sexual offences could not defend their actions. It has been pointed out that people can consent to activities such as boxing and body piercing, which also result in ***, but apparently cannot consent to BDSM.[10] This leads to the situation that, while Great Britain and especially London are world centers of the closely related fetish scene, there are only very private events for the BDSM scene which are in no way comparable to the German "Play party" scene.

 

........

 

As far as I'm aware any impact play is illegal even when consented to. 

[Deleted Member]

9 hours ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Are you sure on this? My understanding was that impact play so long as the person had consented AND that the impact play had not broken the skin was not illegal in the UK. That impact play only became illegal if the skin had been broken, i.e cuts at which point it became Actual Bodily Harm, etc and illegal even if the person had consented. Hence on this point the law comes in that no person can agree to themselves being physically injured in the form of cuts or worse even if they consented. The one exception to this is of course Sports that BDSM is apparently not.

 

So a person that has consented to impact play but just has some red marks and/or light bruising is apparently from what I have read perfectly legal. Unless I am wrong on this? I certainly feel it would be useful to have a definite legal answer on this, perhaps this website has an article on this or another for the UK. From what I could make out from googling the subject we as much the same as the US on this but of course our law isn't exactly the same as the US or its component States.

 

Non-consent is of course illegal. I think gaining written consent by email and correspondence that indicates that the other party is aware and willing is a good idea as a starting point. Of course consent can be withdrawn at any time but that can lead to some ambiguity on both sides as to whether it clearly was. That and it can lead to the dominant being open to false accusations for whatever reason if the submissive claims they did not consent when they did.

 

A lot of this along with other reasons is why as soon as lockdown is lifted I will be looking into a relationship abroad in a country more friendly to BDSM activities. There can be a lot of feminist values in the UK and I find it difficult to trust the women here or the system. I think that consent can be withdrawn verbally at any time while reasonable can just lead to dispute over whether it was or not and the dominant is likely to be seen as guilty in the case of it being unknown by the police to my mind.

 

I'm just into light impact play along with a few other kinks so theoretically I would not breach the law. There seems to be many here though with a long list of activities that they are apparently up for whether doing it, or taking it and so theoretically they could be taking a big risk I guess of falling foul of the law. Now it's not that I'm obsessed of being on the right side of the law but let's face it most of us have jobs to hold down and losing those jobs over a BDSM situation not going well is probably something most of us could do without.

What is your objection to feminist values?

[Deleted Member]

I would say feminist values have absolutely nothing to do with this. In the UK there is no line between BDSM activities and *** simply because you can not use BDSM and consent as a defence it’s really is as simple as that. And yes Bounty, it is illegal

[ol****]

Some good points drawn to our attention for those of us in the UK.

The withdrawal of consent after the event could pose a problem for many.

Hence my advice to always go slowly in a new relationship. There is no need to rush at all.

I really like the concept of enthusiastic consent. I'm sure it's what a lot of D's do already but having a name for it seems useful.

[Deleted Member]

6 hours ago, Curvykate said:

What is your objection to feminist values?

Feminist values are all about hostility and aggression to the man, not physically but psychologically. There about whipping up discontent and hysteria against men. In the context of this situation of consent a guy has to be careful that he's not going to find himself unfairly on the receiving end of this.

 

Sometimes there can be misunderstandings between the two sexes. As I've said before men don't 'interpret' (well not often) women think that they would be able too lol. Now I don't mean this in the way of a guy abusing a woman and then making excuses that is wrong and where a guy has been abusing a woman it is only fair that he gets hauled up for it. The situation can be on the other hand though that feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men. Hence a guy really has to watch himself as if he tries BDSM stuff with the wrong woman and she doesn't react well as hoped and she is influenced by feminism things could go very badly for him.

 

Take for example a scenario where a girl goes to a guy for a spanking. He gives her a light spanking, afterwards she complains that it was too hard and she thought she was just going to be play tapped a couple of times almost like imitating it without actually doing it. She then says that she thought her moans of discomfort would have told him that but that she didn't use the Safe word for some silly reason. He meanwhile thought they were moans of pleasure. She then starts to get all hysterical and buoyed up with feminist values really gets agitated all over it. It's not long before she is trying to take the guy down every which way and destroy his life, police prosecution, trying to get him dismissed from his job, etc, etc. For some feminists they are not happy until they have completely destroyed a man's life for even the slightest misunderstanding or offense.

 

Sometimes even if a guy tells a woman what is going to happen in exact detail what ensues may not be what she thought. I think definitely a guy knowing the girl he is well before doing BDSM is a good idea so both can be fairly reassured that they aren't going to end up with more than they bargained for. It's part of the reason I'm not into kinky dates and doing spanking, etc with girls I hardly know, just too risky in this country. 

[Mo****]

24 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Feminist values are all about hostility and aggression to the man, not physically but psychologically. There about whipping up discontent and hysteria against men. In the context of this situation of consent a guy has to be careful that he's not going to find himself unfairly on the receiving end of this.

 

Sometimes there can be misunderstandings between the two sexes. As I've said before men don't 'interpret' (well not often) women think that they would be able too lol. Now I don't mean this in the way of a guy abusing a woman and then making excuses that is wrong and where a guy has been abusing a woman it is only fair that he gets hauled up for it. The situation can be on the other hand though that feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men. Hence a guy really has to watch himself as if he tries BDSM stuff with the wrong woman and she doesn't react well as hoped and she is influenced by feminism things could go very badly for him.

 

Take for example a scenario where a girl goes to a guy for a spanking. He gives her a light spanking, afterwards she complains that it was too hard and she thought she was just going to be play tapped a couple of times almost like imitating it without actually doing it. She then says that she thought her moans of discomfort would have told him that but that she didn't use the Safe word for some silly reason. He meanwhile thought they were moans of pleasure. She then starts to get all hysterical and buoyed up with feminist values really gets agitated all over it. It's not long before she is trying to take the guy down every which way and destroy his life, police prosecution, trying to get him dismissed from his job, etc, etc. For some feminists they are not happy until they have completely destroyed a man's life for even the slightest misunderstanding or offense.

 

Sometimes even if a guy tells a woman what is going to happen in exact detail what ensues may not be what she thought. I think definitely a guy knowing the girl he is well before doing BDSM is a good idea so both can be fairly reassured that they aren't going to end up with more than they bargained for. It's part of the reason I'm not into kinky dates and doing spanking, etc with girls I hardly know, just too risky in this country. 

I think my eyes just rolled into another dimension 

 

[Deleted Member]

6 minutes ago, Morganna said:

I think my eyes just rolled into another dimension 

 

Would you describe yourself as a feminist, Morganna?

[Mo****]

8 minutes ago, Curvykate said:

Would you describe yourself as a feminist, Morganna?

I certainly would, but I don't see myself described in that particular post. Feminism isn't whipping up hatred towards men, or not my own feminism anyway. I would like to think I am strongly for women living their best lives, from being free to pursue jobs with equal pay to wearing clothes without *** of harassment or even not shaving their body hair or shaving all their head hair! Pro-choice, not expecting women to have ***, but supporting them when they do, not judging women for returning to work and not belittling the role they do staying at home....I could go on but don't want to come across as a hysterical feminist lol

[Deleted Member]

7 hours ago, MrCopolo said:

I would say feminist values have absolutely nothing to do with this. In the UK there is no line between BDSM activities and *** simply because you can not use BDSM and consent as a defence it’s really is as simple as that. And yes Bounty, it is illegal

There is the website “we can’t consent to this” which points at precisely what you say can’t be used as a defence. Even though the rough sex defence is supposed to be ending. I’d be interested to hear your view on this.

[Deleted Member]

12 minutes ago, Morganna said:

I certainly would, but I don't see myself described in that particular post. Feminism isn't whipping up hatred towards men, or not my own feminism anyway. I would like to think I am strongly for women living their best lives, from being free to pursue jobs with equal pay to wearing clothes without *** of harassment or even not shaving their body hair or shaving all their head hair! Pro-choice, not expecting women to have ***, but supporting them when they do, not judging women for returning to work and not belittling the role they do staying at home....I could go on but don't want to come across as a hysterical feminist lol

I’m conscious that the last time I got embroiled in a thread “men haters” was mentioned. I don’t want to be seen as a man hater as I’m not one in the least. But I am a feminist and I will call out misogyny when I see it. I don’t see myself in Phil’s description either.

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Feminist values are all about hostility and aggression to the man, not physically but psychologically. There about whipping up discontent and hysteria against men. In the context of this situation of consent a guy has to be careful that he's not going to find himself unfairly on the receiving end of this.

 

Sometimes there can be misunderstandings between the two sexes. As I've said before men don't 'interpret' (well not often) women think that they would be able too lol. Now I don't mean this in the way of a guy abusing a woman and then making excuses that is wrong and where a guy has been abusing a woman it is only fair that he gets hauled up for it. The situation can be on the other hand though that feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men. Hence a guy really has to watch himself as if he tries BDSM stuff with the wrong woman and she doesn't react well as hoped and she is influenced by feminism things could go very badly for him.

 

Take for example a scenario where a girl goes to a guy for a spanking. He gives her a light spanking, afterwards she complains that it was too hard and she thought she was just going to be play tapped a couple of times almost like imitating it without actually doing it. She then says that she thought her moans of discomfort would have told him that but that she didn't use the Safe word for some silly reason. He meanwhile thought they were moans of pleasure. She then starts to get all hysterical and buoyed up with feminist values really gets agitated all over it. It's not long before she is trying to take the guy down every which way and destroy his life, police prosecution, trying to get him dismissed from his job, etc, etc. For some feminists they are not happy until they have completely destroyed a man's life for even the slightest misunderstanding or offense.

 

Sometimes even if a guy tells a woman what is going to happen in exact detail what ensues may not be what she thought. I think definitely a guy knowing the girl he is well before doing BDSM is a good idea so both can be fairly reassured that they aren't going to end up with more than they bargained for. It's part of the reason I'm not into kinky dates and doing spanking, etc with girls I hardly know, just too risky in this country. 

That’s incorrect - feminism was founded on the principles of social, economic and political equality for women. Look in any dictionary. You may find some radical feminists espouse hatred of men but to accuse all feminists of that is hyperbole. Also your statement that “feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men” - how can you evidence such an exaggerated and stereotyped claim?

[Deleted Member]

25 minutes ago, Curvykate said:

That’s incorrect - feminism was founded on the principles of social, economic and political equality for women. Look in any dictionary. You may find some radical feminists espouse hatred of men but to accuse all feminists of that is hyperbole. Also your statement that “feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men” - how can you evidence such an exaggerated and stereotyped claim?

Oh please, just look at society, the number of broken homes around, divorces, people not getting married, people on ***, high male *** rate, people's unhappiness in life, the way people interact these days, workplace hostilities, etc, etc. The root cause of all of this is feminism, being disgruntled by what the man has.

 

Take Alex Salmond as an example, in the news again today and the way feminists tried to take him down. He was damn lucky that they saw the light in court on that. Most people aren't so lucky and once the accusations start rolling it's pretty much a shut case whether innocent or if it's all been twisted.

[Deleted Member]

13 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Oh please, just look at society, the number of broken homes around, divorces, people not getting married, people on ***, high male *** rate, people's unhappiness in life, the way people interact these days, workplace hostilities, etc, etc. The root cause of all of this is feminism, being disgruntled by what the man has.

 

Take Alex Salmond as an example, in the news again today and the way feminists tried to take him down. He was damn lucky that they saw the light in court on that. Most people aren't so lucky and once the accusations start rolling it's pretty much a shut case whether innocent or if it's all been twisted.

Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a misogynistic post on here. Women want equality and your response is that everything that’s wrong with society is caused by feminism - which strives for equality of the sexes. That’s some pretty twisted logic.

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, Morganna said:

I certainly would, but I don't see myself described in that particular post. Feminism isn't whipping up hatred towards men, or not my own feminism anyway. I would like to think I am strongly for women living their best lives, from being free to pursue jobs with equal pay to wearing clothes without *** of harassment or even not shaving their body hair or shaving all their head hair! Pro-choice, not expecting women to have ***, but supporting them when they do, not judging women for returning to work and not belittling the role they do staying at home....I could go on but don't want to come across as a hysterical feminist lol

All twaddle, that's feminism telling women they can have it all their way. Having it all their way has consequences though. Unevening the gender balance to get stuff all your way just doesn't work, there's always fallout from it.

[Deleted Member]

2 minutes ago, Curvykate said:

Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a misogynistic post on here. Women want equality and your response is that everything that’s wrong with society is caused by feminism - which strives for equality of the sexes. That’s some pretty twisted logic.

They were already equal as in 'equal but different'. Trying to claim they want to be equal in what men have as well just means they are creating inequality with women having more than men. Men cannot get pregnant so get relegated to the workplace for life. Women can duck out of work and have *** whenever they like.

[Wo****]

None so blind as those that cannot see.

 

So... consent... 

On going, enthusiastic consent is irrelevant legally. Impact play is illegal. 

 

Part of me understands why, to protect the ***, the coerced but it's a very grey area hence RACK.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Bounty
Clarification

[Ar****]

1 hour ago, Curvykate said:

That’s incorrect - feminism was founded on the principles of social, economic and political equality for women. Look in any dictionary. You may find some radical feminists espouse hatred of men but to accuse all feminists of that is hyperbole. Also your statement that “feminist values stir up hostility in women to all men” - how can you evidence such an exaggerated and stereotyped claim?

Kate, you've already gone and said almost the very same thing I was going to. Sadly there are an abundance of people who don't want to pick up a dictionary or look at historical context.

 

What we appear to have on our hands is somebody who has taken radical "feminism" - which is not feminism at all - and been blinkered into believing that is true feminism. Those so-called feminists are no different to the white supremacist "pagans" who use Nazi symbols and usurp heathenry, extremist Islamists, Westboro Baptist Christians... none of them follow the tenets their belief system was founded on, they simply hijack them as a convenient vehicle for their diatribe. Sadly such radicals make an awful lot of noise, which is why the media picks up on them and they get the genuine ones a bad name.

 

Sigh.

[Deleted Member]

23 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

Kate, you've already gone and said almost the very same thing I was going to. Sadly there are an abundance of people who don't want to pick up a dictionary or look at historical context.

 

What we appear to have on our hands is somebody who has taken radical "feminism" - which is not feminism at all - and been blinkered into believing that is true feminism. Those so-called feminists are no different to the white supremacist "pagans" who use Nazi symbols and usurp heathenry, extremist Islamists, Westboro Baptist Christians... none of them follow the tenets their belief system was founded on, they simply hijack them as a convenient vehicle for their diatribe. Sadly such radicals make an awful lot of noise, which is why the media picks up on them and they get the genuine ones a bad name.

 

Sigh.

There’s elements of that, I will admit. But clearly some sexist views also held. I don’t wish to derail the thread.

[Fe****]

There is a point of law missed......that technically the 'victim' of bdsm has committed the offence of aiding & abetting their own ***, by consenting???...... Law may be a small donkey?.........maybe?