Consent .

[Ar****]

2 hours ago, Phil_My_Way said:

I personally think that seeing as consent is almost in effect meaningless there is only really need to ask before arrival by text message/email and tell the girl if she changes her mind at any time let me know.

How gratifyingly personal that must be, an email before a session! I nearly jizzed myself with excitement at the thought.

 

Okay, so we say that this text/email business is completely adequate (even though for all you know the person you are meeting might not be the same person who sent the message, putting you at further risk)... if as a Dom/me we don't check in with our partner, even putting aside the connection and intimacy that can enhance an experience as @Bountymentions above, are other clues (visual, auditory etc) ever going to give us the information we truly need to learn how far we can push this particular partner? I think it is safe to say that in the lion's share of liaisons a sub wants to be stretched and a Dom/me doesn't want to stop unnecessarily short if they can safely and consensually take things further. You might think you know your limits and what you want from a scene going into it, but your body (or mind) might tell you differently once partway though dependent upon a whole range of factors.

 

People walk into restaurants all the time thinking they know what they want to eat, they sit down and order something which never crossed their mind until a moment before. We wouldn't *** them to eat what they thought they wanted earlier. Why would it be okay in a kink session to have a different set of rules for people and their bodies?

[Th****]

@MrCopolo Regarding your original post. You wrote one of the best explanations of Consent and Informed Consent it has been my pleasure to read. loved it, Loved It, LOVED IT!

Fetish can always use articles that are this well informed and that highlight such fundamental concepts in our lifestyle.

I had a conversation this very topic myself recently and I must say you explained it far better.

@Phil_My_Way 

Having read your contributions I am now convinced that you are actively trying to annoy and get a response, negative or otherwise. I will not rise to your bait.

[Deleted Member]

3 hours ago, Bounty said:

It didn't spoil anything. In fact it made it better. It takes a step closer, a whisper in my ear.... "enjoying that, slut?" ... "want more?"... "ok to carry on?".... that's a good Dom.

 

Everything is talked about during aftercare, including that I was happy with everything.

For us, it enhanced things not spoilt things.

That could work but it would depend on the dynamic that you both wanted. If the Sub wanted the Dom to be totally directing the environment & development of the sub it probably wouldn't work so well. The first two could give rise to dispute in that what if the Sub said 'No'. Assuming that 'No' wasn't also the Safe word then does the Sub wish him to continue but just being bratty or being disobedient, etc. It would be cautious to stop of course even though the Sub may not like it. The last one kind of puts the Dom in the position of the Sub directing the environment, so depends on whether that is wished for in the dynamic, theoretically a more careful approach but in reality nothing to stop the Sub from running and saying otherwise as to consent. Guess who the Police are going to be acting on?

[Wo****]

3 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

That could work but it would depend on the dynamic that you both wanted. If the Sub wanted the Dom to be totally directing the environment & development of the sub it probably wouldn't work so well. The first two could give rise to dispute in that what if the Sub said 'No'. Assuming that 'No' wasn't also the Safe word then does the Sub wish him to continue but just being bratty or being disobedient, etc. It would be cautious to stop of course even though the Sub may not like it. The last one kind of puts the Dom in the position of the Sub directing the environment, so depends on whether that is wished for in the dynamic, theoretically a more careful approach but in reality nothing to stop the Sub from running and saying otherwise as to consent. Guess who the Police are going to be acting on?

Could work?

It DID work. I'm talking from personal experience.

If I said/say no he knows it doesn't mean no. If i mean no, I use my safe word.

 

Maybe by checking in frequently one minimises the risk of consent being withdrawn.

 

Two scenarios....

1) the Dom has everything in writing, doesn't check in, check for enthusiastic consent, shows no concern about if the sub is still consenting.

2) the Dom checks in regularly, and afterwards, discusses any concerns.

 

Which scenario is more likely to provoke a sub into changing her mind?

 

 

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, Aranhis said:

How gratifyingly personal that must be, an email before a session! I nearly jizzed myself with excitement at the thought.

 

Okay, so we say that this text/email business is completely adequate (even though for all you know the person you are meeting might not be the same person who sent the message, putting you at further risk)... if as a Dom/me we don't check in with our partner, even putting aside the connection and intimacy that can enhance an experience as @Bountymentions above, are other clues (visual, auditory etc) ever going to give us the information we truly need to learn how far we can push this particular partner? I think it is safe to say that in the lion's share of liaisons a sub wants to be stretched and a Dom/me doesn't want to stop unnecessarily short if they can safely and consensually take things further. You might think you know your limits and what you want from a scene going into it, but your body (or mind) might tell you differently once partway though dependent upon a whole range of factors.

 

People walk into restaurants all the time thinking they know what they want to eat, they sit down and order something which never crossed their mind until a moment before. We wouldn't *** them to eat what they thought they wanted earlier. Why would it be okay in a kink session to have a different set of rules for people and their bodies?

Email and messaging is all pretty standard these days. Use of and similar is widespread and can add a slightly more personal level. It's really more to get the practicalities dealt with in a easy going manner so the event can get on without them getting in the way and messing up the mood. The Sub would theoretically be reassured in advance as to a few basic bits about what is going down.

 

Of course the activity will and should involve communication, but you also want it to feel authentic both for you and the Sub. The point I was trying to make that asking for consent during the activity particularly if straight out could ruin the mood with no particular gain in making the activity any more legal. It stands to reason that you should try and be are as much as possible to all verbal and non verbal communication from the Sub including any change in their wishes. The main point I was making though was that in essence it's still could be deemed illegal, asking a Sub if they are still consensual during an activity in any which way is still no guarantee that you won't be hauled over the coals for it later on. Remember anything said verbally can be disputed or denied later.

[Deleted Member]

13 minutes ago, Bounty said:

Could work?

It DID work. I'm talking from personal experience.

If I said/say no he knows it doesn't mean no. If i mean no, I use my safe word.

 

Maybe by checking in frequently one minimises the risk of consent being withdrawn.

 

Two scenarios....

1) the Dom has everything in writing, doesn't check in, check for enthusiastic consent, shows no concern about if the sub is still consenting.

2) the Dom checks in regularly, and afterwards, discusses any concerns.

 

Which scenario is more likely to provoke a sub into changing her mind?

 

 

Have I got this right that despite saying 'no' you were not ok to proceed that because you did not use your Safe word he knows it doesn't mean no and so presumably did not stop!

 

That would be exactly what I am talking about. It's fine for you but very, very dodgy ground for your Dom to be on. How many times have we heard women utter the phrase, 'no means no'? And guys not accept that and be done for it in court. Your Dom would have been theoretically placed in a worse position than if he had not asked at all. To outsiders you have told him 'no' but he still pressed on. Had he not asked he would at least not had that condemnation presumably.

 

The fact that you are decent enough not to drop him in the sh*t is something he has to be grateful for. As a Sub you are unlikely to be in the position of facing a legal situation as it will be the Dom's activities that the Police would be looking at if he was ever unfortunate enough to have a Sub rat on him. No wonder why so many Dom's profile pics look like Police Mug shots on here lol.

[Deleted Member]

I mean I see what you're saying guys that the more personal approach is more likely to build trust and relationship, so less likely to blow up in your face. There are no guarantees though as the main point is either way you are still legally at risk if you're the Dom. There are some funny people around, some even not that right in the head themselves or become not right. They can turn in an instant and suddenly drop you in it without talking to the Dom first or the Dom even knowing there is a problem. There are even people who later on see something on the news, speak to someone, etc which motivates them to think of what went down in a different light and then take issue with it even though they seemed perfectly fine with it at the time.

 

What I'm saying is while we can set out with the best intentions in the best way 'consent' doesn't offer a Dom anything much in a way of a leg to stand on should the Police become involved. Better to always ask yes but still doesn't offer any guarantee.

 

Hence while the question is a good one as people's eyes need to be open on this. I personally would prefer to look into other options as given earlier to avoid this problem, BDSM abroad, long term relationships, etc. I reckon one way could be that if the Dom gets the Sub to do the activity on him first if possible to the the level he will do on the Sub, not necessarily for same length of time though, video it so then both are in the same boat. If the Sub rats on the Dom then the Dom can say the Sub did the same. Either you would both be done for it or neither, catch 22. Again not an absolute guarantee but still probably a lot better than relying on 'consent' carry on in my opinion. I wouldn't see why any Sub would reasonably take issue with this even if the wanted video evidence too as seems a practical solution as far as one goes to my mind.

[Wo****]

19 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Have I got this right that despite saying 'no' you were not ok to proceed that because you did not use your Safe word he knows it doesn't mean no and so presumably did not stop!

No.

We both knew that if I say no I don't mean no. Our rule was only my safe word means stop, or no.

One of my kinks is CNC so the word no is part of the play..

 

With the impact play... we know each other very very well. "You okay?".... "No you've just thrashed my arse" DISCLAIMER: BANTER BETWEEN US. SARCASM, FUN, FULLY CONSENSUAL..... in our dynamic no often meant yes which is why we have our safe word. We BOTH have one too.

Another point. The Dom has to consent too.

[Wo****]

42 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

The main point I was making though was that in essence it's still could be deemed illegal

Could be deemed illegal?

It IS illegal. That's the point.

[Deleted Member]

57 minutes ago, Bounty said:

No.

We both knew that if I say no I don't mean no. Our rule was only my safe word means stop, or no.

One of my kinks is CNC so the word no is part of the play..

 

With the impact play... we know each other very very well. "You okay?".... "No you've just thrashed my arse" DISCLAIMER: BANTER BETWEEN US. SARCASM, FUN, FULLY CONSENSUAL..... in our dynamic no often meant yes which is why we have our safe word. We BOTH have one too.

Another point. The Dom has to consent too.

So if you say no it doesn't mean no during an activity and for him to carry on. In the commonly understood use of the term it means exactly that. That is putting the Dom in a very precarious legal position as outsiders, Police, Courts, etc would/could term no meaning exactly that and hence leaving no ambiguity in a case. Sure all of it is in theory illegal but a guy turning up in court with a girl saying she said no but he still carried on isn't going to look good and likely get a harder sentence.

 

It's even more disturbing that you do CNC, the Dom guy you are with needs to get his head read. You could turn around and accuse him of the real thing for all he knows and since it is an immitation of the real thing he might get done for it if reported and it went to court. All it takes is a bad falling out, argument, seeing things in a different light, mental illness, etc on the part of the Sub and that poor dude could be sent down for years on a charge that is in fact bs but can't be proven otherwise. No way in hell would I do any kind of CNC with a woman in the UK, just too dodgy, could end up in something being needed to blow your brains out with! 

 

Seriously, utterly demented. I don't think your Dom realises the huge risk he is taking, as in all the risk being on him, not you.

[Wo****]

21 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

So if you say no it doesn't mean no during an activity and for him to carry on. In the commonly understood use of the term it means exactly that. That is putting the Dom in a very precarious legal position as outsiders, Police, Courts, etc would/could term no meaning exactly that and hence leaving no ambiguity in a case. Sure all of it is in theory illegal but a guy turning up in court with a girl saying she said no but he still carried on isn't going to look good and likely get a harder sentence.

 

It's even more disturbing that you do CNC, the Dom guy you are with needs to get his head read. You could turn around and accuse him of the real thing for all he knows and since it is an immitation of the real thing he might get done for it if reported and it went to court. All it takes is a bad falling out, argument, seeing things in a different light, mental illness, etc on the part of the Sub and that poor dude could be sent down for years on a charge that is in fact bs but can't be proven otherwise. No way in hell would I do any kind of CNC with a woman in the UK, just too dodgy, could end up in something being needed to blow your brains out with! 

 

Seriously, utterly demented. I don't think your Dom realises the huge risk he is taking, as in all the risk being on him, not you.

I. Give. Up.

[Wo****]

@Phil_My_Way

I only did impact play at the fetish club. CNC was always done in private and only in an established relationship.

Before, and during, each and every demo it was explained that for me, no didn't mean no. It was explained when we'd mingle. Everybody involved knew that if I said no while we were playing I didn't mean no.

Any Dominant that I submit to is also my protector and I can't begin to explain the lengths they go to to ensure my safety.

 

Just out of interest, do you actually know anything about CNC, RACK, SSC, PRICK, BDSM?

 

Or are you just making presumption after presumption?

 

[Bo****]

36 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

So if you say no it doesn't mean no during an activity and for him to carry on. In the commonly understood use of the term it means exactly that. That is putting the Dom in a very precarious legal position as outsiders, Police, Courts, etc would/could term no meaning exactly that and hence leaving no ambiguity in a case. Sure all of it is in theory illegal but a guy turning up in court with a girl saying she said no but he still carried on isn't going to look good and likely get a harder sentence.

 

It's even more disturbing that you do CNC, the Dom guy you are with needs to get his head read. You could turn around and accuse him of the real thing for all he knows and since it is an immitation of the real thing he might get done for it if reported and it went to court. All it takes is a bad falling out, argument, seeing things in a different light, mental illness, etc on the part of the Sub and that poor dude could be sent down for years on a charge that is in fact bs but can't be proven otherwise. No way in hell would I do any kind of CNC with a woman in the UK, just too dodgy, could end up in something being needed to blow your brains out with! 

 

Seriously, utterly demented. I don't think your Dom realises the huge risk he is taking, as in all the risk being on him, not you.

Full RACK.....actually!!!.... Not just cognitive dissonance and puerile distortions.......

my Equal n totally trusted friend......***Y glad she is not just ' dom' fodder.....enjoy the ignorance your domness..........

By the way i am ' head read' ......so mental health shaming my past in your blissful ignorance,making no responsibility allowance to the original post ,merely inciting reactions with projected insecurities .

happy to ignore the snoozedom implied by your retarded attempts to personally insult me,..but please,pretty please,a little less calling my bodyguard demented..........it does not reflect well on  the term Dom......i have some good Dom friends.🐺🐾🐾......

 

[Si****]

6 hours ago, Phil_My_Way said:

 That is putting the Dom in a very precarious legal position as outsiders, Police, Courts, etc would/could term no meaning exactly that and hence leaving no ambiguity in a case.

The police and the courts would take into consideration the whole context of the situation based on the evidence and not just on a single word. Before it could get to a court, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would have to authorise the police to charge based on the evidence the police would have to put together to authorise a prosecution. They weight up the likelihood of a successful conviction over the publics interest. Any reasonable defence lawyer would be able to show the agreement between the two parties involved and show that it was a role play where safeguards were in play. There are many case precedents in the UK where a person had regretted having sex after having consented before hand and attempted to claim ***. These cases were defended based on the whole circumstances surrounding the allegation.

No way in hell would I do any kind of CNC with a woman in the UK, just too dodgy, could end up in something being needed to blow your brains out with! 

On that merit, the man who wrote the script for “Diehard” would be guilty of plotting to carry out illegal acts. His script goes into great detail of how terrorists could take control over Nakatomi Plaza. Yet that’s USA legal system. The UK law system recognises that some things are roleplay and would openly take this into account. Clearly you are happy to kink shame, this is unaceptable here on this site. Just because you dont agree with it, you have to accept that you shouldnt challenge others that do.

Seriously, utterly demented. I don't think your Dom realises the huge risk he is taking, as in all the risk being on him, not you.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Her Dom is someone I have chatted to on this site and he knows much more about HIS own relationship than you do. 

It's even more disturbing that you do CNC, the Dom guy you are with needs to get his head read.

Whereas the law permits freedom of expression, this is also kept in check with laws preventing hate, abusive, alarming s***ch. Unless you are a professional phycologist, you shouldn’t be making comments in a public forum about another person’s mental state. You leave yourself open to being sued. I think someone has already said “ you are deliberately making your silly comments to get a response”.

No way in hell would I do any kind of CNC with a woman in the UK, just too dodgy, could end up in something being needed to blow your brains out with! 

Again thats your right and your opinion. Do not try to *** it on others.

 

 

[Deleted Member]

49 minutes ago, SirGreen said:

 

From what I have read the act being deemed 'roleplay' is no more something that can be agreed to than 'consent'. Hence if Actual Bodily Harm is caused as an intention then deeming it 'roleplay' would be no defence. Acting is a different matter and I believe already has been raised in court/legally that it does not apply to BDSM activities neither does BDSM being termed a sport, etc. 

 

There may well be the context as brought by the defence off how it came about but again the prosecution would bring up that the it is not something the Sub can legally consent too. Signs of her being ***d and any statements of her saying no would hence be regarded the same as in any case.

 

What has been found with impact play essentially is the same throughout BDSM that no activity can be legally consented too even if the Sub has consented. Many cases of Body modifications as well in case law where the Sub consented and it was judged afterwards that they it was not something they could legally consent too, no reason CNC is any different from the rest of BDSM it's just another activity that can't be legally consented too whatever the written agreements and context.

 

We could argue about this all day, I'm not opposed to any of this going on, but the question of consent was raised by the OP and this is how it is described in many cases in the US and the UK. I have suggested that this site produce an article after seeking legal advice on the matter. Those engaged in CNC play would be wise in my opinion to spend a few bob themselves on getting good legal advice on the matter as they may well be surprised. Even then they would have to be sure that they could rely on that legal advice if it said they could do as suggested which I doubt it would. Myself I would make sure I'm in a country where the law supports such activities it would be worth the cost of the plane fare.

[Deleted Member]

8 hours ago, Bounty said:

@Phil_My_Way

I only did impact play at the fetish club. CNC was always done in private and only in an established relationship.

Before, and during, each and every demo it was explained that for me, no didn't mean no. It was explained when we'd mingle. Everybody involved knew that if I said no while we were playing I didn't mean no.

Any Dominant that I submit to is also my protector and I can't begin to explain the lengths they go to to ensure my safety.

 

Just out of interest, do you actually know anything about CNC, RACK, SSC, PRICK, BDSM?

 

Or are you just making presumption after presumption?

 

Your missing the point that it doesn't matter if it was explained beforehand that no doesn't mean no, you can't legally consent to it. RACK etc won't help either, it's all still illegal activity in the eyes of the law, doesn't matter if in a club or at home. Even in a LTR it is an illegal activity, it's just that you would hope in an LTR the Sub won't go squealing but even there no assurances. 

[Si****]

1 hour ago, Phil_My_Way said:

From what I have read the act being deemed 'roleplay' is no more something that can be agreed to than 'consent'. Hence if Actual Bodily Harm is caused as an intention then deeming it 'roleplay' would be no defence. Acting is a different matter and I believe already has been raised in court/legally that it does not apply to BDSM activities neither does BDSM being termed a sport, etc. 

 

There may well be the context as brought by the defence off how it came about but again the prosecution would bring up that the it is not something the Sub can legally consent too. Signs of her being ***d and any statements of her saying no would hence be regarded the same as in any case.

 

What has been found with impact play essentially is the same throughout BDSM that no activity can be legally consented too even if the Sub has consented. Many cases of Body modifications as well in case law where the Sub consented and it was judged afterwards that they it was not something they could legally consent too, no reason CNC is any different from the rest of BDSM it's just another activity that can't be legally consented too whatever the written agreements and context.

 

We could argue about this all day, I'm not opposed to any of this going on, but the question of consent was raised by the OP and this is how it is described in many cases in the US and the UK. I have suggested that this site produce an article after seeking legal advice on the matter. Those engaged in CNC play would be wise in my opinion to spend a few bob themselves on getting good legal advice on the matter as they may well be surprised. Even then they would have to be sure that they could rely on that legal advice if it said they could do as suggested which I doubt it would. Myself I would make sure I'm in a country where the law supports such activities it would be worth the cost of the plane fare.

Yet in the UK legal system, the key emphasis is whether it’s a common or a criminal law being upheld. Even though the UK courts can disregard article 8 of the HRA, they very seldomly do.

As the law stands, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case unlike a civil case (common) where the test to prove would be if a reasonable person would agree that the parties were consenting to an act that was in private and does not fall in the public’s interest.

The overriding objective of any court is to decide if the parties were both in sound mind and knew what was going to happen and if either of the parties could stop feely and in their own state of mind.

With regards to any *** charges, just saying words can be an ***. Placing a hand on someone’s arm is *** if said person does not consent. Therefore everything could be illegal. By this act of orbiter (changes it to a common law not criminal law) Sec 39 Criminal justice act 1988, a person can give consent to something that is illegal in the UK. The best way to explain this is having your hair cut. It would legally be *** and personal trespass in the eyes of the law.

However in the case of  R v Irland and Tubervil v Savage would allow a reasonable defence if it can be shown that victim had not been put in *** that they were going to be subject to *** that they had no control over. This could very easily be defended if it can be shown that “safe words” were in place and the victim was free to stop the act.

That’s my opinion based on legal training in my day job and not intended to be taken as legal advice. People need to get their own legal advice.  So lets just say we disagree and leave it there. I’m not going to spend my time playing you silly games any more.

[Deleted Member]

8 minutes ago, SirGreen said:

Yet in the UK legal system, the key emphasis is whether it’s a common or a criminal law being upheld. Even though the UK courts can disregard article 8 of the HRA, they very seldomly do.

As the law stands, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case unlike a civil case (common) where the test to prove would be if a reasonable person would agree that the parties were consenting to an act that was in private and does not fall in the public’s interest.

The overriding objective of any court is to decide if the parties were both in sound mind and knew what was going to happen and if either of the parties could stop feely and in their own state of mind.

With regards to any *** charges, just saying words can be an ***. Placing a hand on someone’s arm is *** if said person does not consent. Therefore everything could be illegal. By this act of orbiter (changes it to a common law not criminal law) Sec 39 Criminal justice act 1988, a person can give consent to something that is illegal in the UK. The best way to explain this is having your hair cut. It would legally be *** and personal trespass in the eyes of the law.

However in the case of  R v Irland and Tubervil v Savage would allow a reasonable defence if it can be shown that victim had not been put in *** that they were going to be subject to *** that they had no control over. This could very easily be defended if it can be shown that “safe words” were in place and the victim was free to stop the act.

That’s my opinion based on legal training in my day job and not intended to be taken as legal advice. People need to get their own legal advice.  So lets just say we disagree and leave it there. I’m not going to spend my time playing you silly games any more.

Haircutting is haircutting and not the same. Issues would vary with it but in general someone who complained that a hairdresser had ***ed them through a haircut would be its own case in kind and judged on the merits of the case. It may be decided that it was trivial as in the case of possibly some light impact play and hence a civil matter or it may be decided that the person had a badly cut head that they couldn't have consented too. Again this is just my opinion based on what info is available. Taking cases from elsewhere and other laws doesn't mean it would hold up for a BDSM activity in court. I personally wouldn't want to be in the position of arguing the toss as if I lost i court guess where I would be.

 

This is not a silly game, it is answering the question. 

[Deleted Member]

On 2/23/2021 at 6:48 AM, Bounty said:

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. 

So here earlier you state it is illegal and yet later on you are stating that it is not???

 

Apparently because it is 'you' it doesn't apply to you, just the rest of the BDSM community. You must be so.e higher level being of intelligence that has found a way around with your Dom that no other BDSM person has so far yet been capable off lol.

[Carnelian2]

@Phil_My_WayIt appears you have gone from saying that submissives should just submit without question whilst definitely not being Feminist and having an opinion of their own, to saying that everything to do with BDSM is illegal.

Interesting, if slightly confused and contradictory

[Mo****]

8 minutes ago, Phil_My_Way said:

So here earlier you state it is illegal and yet later on you are stating that it is not???

 

Apparently because it is 'you' it doesn't apply to you, just the rest of the BDSM community. You must be so.e higher level being of intelligence that has found a way around with your Dom that no other BDSM person has so far yet been capable off lol.

We all agree it is illegal, what people are saying is that they have or have had relationships based on trust and communication. Nobody should enter this without either. People talk and talk and talk some more before playing and are advised to by anyone with knowledge and experience. Talking may seem boring but it's what makes the play ultimately more safe for both parties.

 

If you think people who embrace a BDSM or kink based lifestyle are all needing to have their head read, why did you get involved in it? Why stay here and argue against a whole forum of people involved in it when you seem to find it so abhorrent? I'd jump ship and go back to mumsnet where they find it all disgusting too....

I do wonder though where this foreign land where women do not need to consent and their are no laws surrounding it that you are so keen to go to?

[Deleted Member]

2 hours ago, Phil_My_Way said:

Your missing the point that it doesn't matter if it was explained beforehand that no doesn't mean no, you can't legally consent to it. 

I'm starting to think you have had legal issues in the past, maybe with "subs squealing" as you phrase it. Been a bad boy have you, stepped over the mark and paid a price? It wouldn't surprise me.

[Deleted Member]

2 hours ago, Carnelian2 said:

@Phil_My_WayIt appears you have gone from saying that submissives should just submit without question whilst definitely not being Feminist and having an opinion of their own, to saying that everything to do with BDSM is illegal.

Interesting, if slightly confused and contradictory

Not really a contradiction, I never said they should submit without question more that the nature of a Sub is to submit and the nature of a Feminist is not. Some Feminists will no doubt happily submit to some requests/demands but push the wrong button and they could kick back badly and go running off to the Police with all sorts of accusations. Some may be in BDSM without doing this but I would find them too risky to deal with.

 

Whether a BDSM activity is illegal depends on what it is. What Bounty was talking about here is illegal. She may not like to hear that but it is the truth. Building Trust etc is all very well and great but it doesn't stop the activity being illegal at least in theory.

[Annalou]

Hey guys, interesting discussion! But play NICE. Listen to others, don't get personal – raise the discussion above personal jibes. I'm keeping an eye on this one, and will not refrain from locking it if it gets out of hand. As you were... 

[Deleted Member]

2 hours ago, Morganna said:

We all agree it is illegal, what people are saying is that they have or have had relationships based on trust and communication. Nobody should enter this without either. People talk and talk and talk some more before playing and are advised to by anyone with knowledge and experience. Talking may seem boring but it's what makes the play ultimately more safe for both parties.

 

If you think people who embrace a BDSM or kink based lifestyle are all needing to have their head read, why did you get involved in it? Why stay here and argue against a whole forum of people involved in it when you seem to find it so abhorrent? I'd jump ship and go back to mumsnet where they find it all disgusting too....

I do wonder though where this foreign land where women do not need to consent and their are no laws surrounding it that you are so keen to go to?

Good, we all agree it is apparently illegal at least in theory. Whether there is trust or Police not interested in pressing charges is another matter. Sure BDSM relationships go on and have lasted or ended perfectly well without them ending up a legal issue. The question of consent has then been answered and despite our arguing we all apparently agree that apart from the 'trival' whatever that may be giving consent likely doesn't make it theoretically legal.

 

A lot will of course depend on what is brought to Police attention and how in reality and the circumstances surrounding it but the overriding issue in general is that BDSM activities are in theory illegal where their is evidence of ***, consent doesn't help avoid it being theoretically illegal.

 

In fairness I have seen some BDSM stuff online where the Sub is getting bruised up pretty badly through canning and the like. I personally wouldn't feel right going that far it just looks like *** to me and quite brutal. A few ref marks seem far enough to me so in all reasonableness I can see why they say you can't consent to that. The lack of clarification over what is a trifle and how far you can go doesn't really help as it could be possible to say only but the lightest slapping is indeed trivial.

 

I think what we have here are those that have got on perfectly well with the idea of consent so the issue over whether something is legal never became an issue. To us newer members viewing someone's profile particularly if they are new to the scene themselves the idea of hinging BDSM activities with them on consent which doesn't likely make the activity legal is not an idea that instills confidence.

 

I think some people can argue away as for them it ends up in arguing any point just so long as they feel they have won the argument. I don't have time for that and so this will be my last post on this subject thread. I will keep my profile on here as I am into BDSM, but as said earlier I don't think the partner I am looking for is likely here. I notice that many male Dom's appear to be straight in their profiles but many female Subs are often queer. An interesting difference but it's not likely the scene I was led to believe was present. I thought that there would be a far more balanced cross section of society. Nothing wrong with those that are queer for them but it kind of dominates a lot here.