Limits. Consent. The Word No

[CopperKnob]

A while back a Fet profile (let's call him Chester) described his sub's limits as challenges, a checklist if you will. He appeared to like nothing better than to tempt subs into downgrading their limits into permissible territory.
.
There is no checklist. Limits are something the stype determines. They're boundaries. They're to be respected, just like the word "no". Just like the person who says the word "no". Just like all the ways in which people say "no".
.
Sometimes though, someone's "no" is completely disregarded.
.
An example of someone saying no:
.
Bob and I have been chatting in a friendly way on/off for over a year. He organises events. We've met once IRL at an event. He's well known, appears to be well liked and from what I gather, he's well respected. Bob however failed to accept my limits. He failed to recognise the word "no". He failed to respect it and, in doing so, failed to respect me. For Bob, it was the beginning of a negotiation...I paraphrase:
.
Bob: You should come to (this play munch)
.
Me: thanks but I'm busy that evening and I don't feel ready for that
.
Bob: That's OK, it's monthly, you'll know some of the people, you'll enjoy yourself. Come next month.
.
Me: I know, but it's not something I want to do.
.
Bob: We could do a scene together, I always have my rope with me. It'll be fun, you'll have fun.
Here's some pictures of some ties I've done, which do you like? The chest harness would be a good start.
.
Me: They look great but I really don't want to be in a space where other people are playing.
.
Bob: I know your profile says that you're monogamous and that you prefer kink to be private  but I really think you should come. Think about it.
.
Here's another example where my "no" was accepted (again I paraphrase), this time with Betty

Betty: Bob, said you might come to (this play munch)
.
Me: Oh? I'm not sure that's what I said?
.
Betty: Are you nervous about it? It's normal for someone if it's their first time
.
Me: It's more that I don't know what to expect and that people will be playing
.
Betty: yeah, I get that. Each one has a theme so you'd know what kind of thing to expect and some of the play is behind closed doors so it's not in your face
.
Me: Would I know what was behind a door? What if it was knife or *** or needle play, how would I know that?
.
Betty: that's a good point, you wouldn't. Actually, if you look at it from a consent point of view, you couldn't consent to viewing that
.
Me: Yeah, which is the main reason I don't want to go
.
The word “no” is supposed to be the end of a discussion, not the beginning of a nag-fest.
.
When I raised it, Bob said, but you didn’t say “no.”
.
Yes Bob. I did. I just didn’t use the word.
.
I’m sure Bob is a perfectly respectable guy, but like many consent violators, he has a talent for justification and rationalisation. Whatever I said he translated as “maybe.” No matter how much I voiced my disinterest about the event, Bob said I’d never used the word “no” so it was perfectly ethical to keep the coversation going. He interpreted everything I’d said in a way that was favourable to his goal: persuading me into doing something I didn’t want to do.
.
It was all about Bob. Bob’s preferences. Bob’s desires.
.
And I fully believe that he was convinced by his own brain gymnastics. Bob probably doesn’t think he’s a consent violator, and he probably isn't but, that’s the whole damn problem. When you’re convinced you’re doing something ethically, you’re much more likely to violate consent.
.
Limits are not challenges to overturn or opportunities to exploit. They are firm “no's”, and every stype needs to know they will be treated as sacred.
.
Think of limits as safety zones. They give us a sense of safety and help is retain an element of control. Limits are not open to negotiation until we decide that they are.
.
Before all the Bob's out there create a new justification for pushing limits, no in whatever format, means no. It does not mean “nag me again,” so I propose a different approach: Listen. Try to understand the other person's ***s. Place their boundaries at the top of your priority list right next to your concern for their well-being.
.
If you didn't hear a "yes" then the answer is "no".

[4R****]

I like to use the acronym F.R.I.E.S. when gaining consent. This originates from an organisation called 'Planned Parenthood' and is rapidly becoming a popular way to ensure that you really are gaining consent.

• Freely given. Doing something with someone is a decision that should be made without pressure, ***, manipulation, or while drunk or high.
• Reversible. Anyone can change their mind about what they want to do, at any time. Even if you’ve done it before or are in the middle of doing it. That’s what Safe Words are for.
• Informed. Be open and honest about what you intend to do and the possible consequences.
• Enthusiastic. If someone isn’t excited, or really into it, that’s not consent.
• Specific. Saying yes to one thing doesn’t mean they’ve said yes to anything else.

Everyone has the right to say No and should learn to do so. Some people believe that not giving consent is the same as saying no, but this is not quite true. Many people will tolerate inappropriate behaviour simply because they don’t want to cause a fuss or appear rude. But they are left feeling uncomfortable because of the actions of another individual and this is not OK. When you give consent you are agreeing to something, but ‘not’ giving consent is not the same as objecting to something, and this is an incredibly important distinction. If someone does (or goes to do) something you don’t want to happen, speak up and make it known to that person that you want them to stop.

Some people think that consent isn't a big issue - until it is! They go along, getting away with doing stuff that isn't ok but because nobody complains they take it as implied consent. But at some point, consent will be an issue, and at that point it will be too late.

In my opinion - if it's not F.R.I.E.S. then it's not consent!

Edited December 10, 2022 by 4RCH

[CopperKnob]

2 minutes ago, 4RCH said:

I like to use the acronym F.R.I.E.S. when gaining consent. This originates from an organisation called 'Planned Parenthood' and is rapidly becoming a popular way to ensure that you really are gaining consent.

• Freely given. Doing something with someone is a decision that should be made without pressure, ***, manipulation, or while drunk or high.
• Reversible. Anyone can change their mind about what they want to do, at any time. Even if you’ve done it before or are in the middle of doing it. That’s what Safe Words are for.
• Informed. Be open and honest about what you intend to do and the possible consequences.
• Enthusiastic. If someone isn’t excited, or really into it, that’s not consent.
• Specific. Saying yes to one thing doesn’t mean they’ve said yes to anything else.

 

Everyone has the right to say No and should learn to do so. Some people believe that not giving consent is the same as saying no, but this is not quite true. Many people will tolerate inappropriate behaviour simply because they don’t want to cause a fuss or appear rude. But they are left feeling uncomfortable because of the actions of another individual and this is not OK. When you give consent you are agreeing to something, but ‘not’ giving consent is not the same as objecting to something, and this is an incredibly important distinction. If someone does (or goes to do) something you don’t want to happen, speak up and make it known to that person that you want them to stop.

Some people think that consent isn't a big issue - until it is! They go along, getting away with doing stuff that isn't ok but because nobody complains they take it as implied consent. But at some point, consent will be an issue, and at that point it will be too late.

Love an acronym!

[Obediently_defiant]

To me people who don’t use or accept safe words or the word no is dangerous to play with. I learned it the hard way.

[Mi****]

Surely F.R.I.E.S. is commonly known within the community? If not do make yourself aware!

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, MisterTrainer said:

Surely F.R.I.E.S. is commonly known within the community? If not do make yourself aware!

Nope, never come across it before

[Na****]

10 minutes ago, MisterTrainer said:

Surely F.R.I.E.S. is commonly known within the community? If not do make yourself aware!

What’s F R I E S?

[Na****]

I know S.S.C

[CopperKnob]

1 minute ago, NaughtyBrat87 said:

What’s F R I E S?

See 4RCH's comment above

[Na****]

3 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

See 4RCH's comment above

Okay but what does it stand for?

[QXX666]

If you were his sub then you gave consent to challenge your limits. We use the term hard and soft limits. You said you discussed a year with him for sure most of the do and don’t has been established? Your trust in him must have been established?
In the example the sun should have just said I won’t go to events until I decide to do so. Not giving excuses or living the door opened for bob’s arguments to go..
miscommunication overall

[4R****]

1 minute ago, NaughtyBrat87 said:

Okay but what does it stand for?

• F - Freely given. Doing something with someone is a decision that should be made without pressure, ***, manipulation, or while drunk or high.
• R - Reversible. Anyone can change their mind about what they want to do, at any time. Even if you’ve done it before or are in the middle of doing it. That’s what Safe Words are for.
• I - Informed. Be open and honest about what you intend to do and the possible consequences.
• E - Enthusiastic. If someone isn’t excited, or really into it, that’s not consent.
• S - Specific. Saying yes to one thing doesn’t mean they’ve said yes to anything else.

[CopperKnob]

4 minutes ago, QXX666 said:

If you were his sub then you gave consent to challenge your limits. We use the term hard and soft limits. You said you discussed a year with him for sure most of the do and don’t has been established? Your trust in him must have been established?
In the example the sun should have just said I won’t go to events until I decide to do so. Not giving excuses or living the door opened for bob’s arguments to go..
miscommunication overall

No that's not what the post indicates.
It does not suggest that there was a dynamic. It does not suggest I gave consent for Bob to challenge my limits.
It does not suggest any level of trust.
It literally says communication was on a friendly basis and we'd met once.

[Leisa]

This is the exactly the reason I’ve been mostly MIA since last February. I have been terrified to venture back into the wading pool. It didn’t help that this same individual metaphorically cornered me again in July to bring back all the angst and nervousness again. I’d seen him out a few times while out with friends and he was taunting me that I was running away every time he walked in. He went so far as to lecture me that I was being disrespectful to a Dom and I’d never find a Dom who would willingly accept that my hard limits were mine and needed to be respected. Needless to say, I’d only been out of the shadows a couple of weeks when his actions had me ducking back into safety. I’m still not sure I’ll ever be ready to take the risk of allowing another to get close enough to give that level of trust and dedication to again but I’m slowly coming back into my own. Feeling more confident in my worth as a sub and hopeful that one prick didn’t destroy a confidence I’d carried as a sub for decades.

Ladies and gentlemen, no absolutely means no regardless of how it’s phrased.

[Ceejayuk]

While i have not heard the term Fries before, the same sentiments should be part of common knowledge.
As people say no means no. 

[CopperKnob]

1 hour ago, Leisa said:

This is the exactly the reason I’ve been mostly MIA since last February. I have been terrified to venture back into the wading pool. It didn’t help that this same individual metaphorically cornered me again in July to bring back all the angst and nervousness again. I’d seen him out a few times while out with friends and he was taunting me that I was running away every time he walked in. He went so far as to lecture me that I was being disrespectful to a Dom and I’d never find a Dom who would willingly accept that my hard limits were mine and needed to be respected. Needless to say, I’d only been out of the shadows a couple of weeks when his actions had me ducking back into safety. I’m still not sure I’ll ever be ready to take the risk of allowing another to get close enough to give that level of trust and dedication to again but I’m slowly coming back into my own. Feeling more confident in my worth as a sub and hopeful that one prick didn’t destroy a confidence I’d carried as a sub for decades.

Ladies and gentlemen, no absolutely means no regardless of how it’s phrased.

What a horrid individual! Hoping your confidence returns over time

[Deleted Member]

@Leisa Take all the baby steps you need. You will be a happy Sub again.I believe in you Leisa. Sending you my power huggie.🤗💖💖💖

[Deleted Member]

To then bring someone else into it to try get his own way, he knew exactly what he was doing, he knew you said no too otherwise he wouldn't of had a second try to talk you into it. Bob is a joke, don't be like Bob

[John54]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. 'No' means 'No'. 'I don't want to' ISN'T the same at all. You're delivering mixed messages and then blaming the Domme for not interpreting your unclear communication. I would regard that as a tease that I could work with, or a protestation that I was meant to debate/negotiate/overcome. As soon as the word is 'No' I know where I stand, and it all stops and the Sub is comforted because obviously they've reached a limit.
I wonder what you get out of this blame game?

[Deleted Member]

Don't use acronyms. Acronyms are not real language. What as happened to the world and the use of real language! To use plain and concise words leave no room for error or judgement. 

Clear discussion before anything, should be there to set ground rules. Otherwise that is when things go wrong and people get hurt. In normal context 'No' should mean 'No'. But it could be part of the dynamic. Part of the Dom/Sub play. It has to be agreed upon what the word 'No' means. A clear safe word has to be agreed upon. If you go beyond that, it's ***. 

[CopperKnob]

5 hours ago, John54 said:

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. 'No' means 'No'. 'I don't want to' ISN'T the same at all. You're delivering mixed messages and then blaming the Domme for not interpreting your unclear communication. I would regard that as a tease that I could work with, or a protestation that I was meant to debate/negotiate/overcome. As soon as the word is 'No' I know where I stand, and it all stops and the Sub is comforted because obviously they've reached a limit.
I wonder what you get out of this blame game?

"I don't feel ready for that" = no
"It's not something I want to do" = no
"I don't really want to be in a space where other people are playing" = no
None of those statements = maybe or yes
There are no mixed messages in the above account unless the reader is prioritising their own goals as Bob did.
I don't blame Bob, or you or anyone else whose commented suggesting that they have difficulty with the concept of limits, consent or all the different ways people say no.
I blame Hollywood and all the movies that have capitalised on the idea that when femmes give a negative response they're playing hard to get/teasing/mean yes.

[CopperKnob]

3 hours ago, DaddyBear63 said:

Don't use acronyms. Acronyms are not real language. What as happened to the world and the use of real language! To use plain and concise words leave no room for error or judgement. 

Clear discussion before anything, should be there to set ground rules. Otherwise that is when things go wrong and people get hurt. In normal context 'No' should mean 'No'. But it could be part of the dynamic. Part of the Dom/Sub play. It has to be agreed upon what the word 'No' means. A clear safe word has to be agreed upon. If you go beyond that, it's ***. 

I don't think we need to change the English language, the word no works well
Or it should

[Deleted Member]

1 minute ago, CopperKnob said:

I don't think we need to change the English language, the word no works well
Or it should

You missed the point of what I am saying. I never said anything about changing the English language.  'No' should mean 'No' if that is the agreed term to stop. This is why I mentioned about frank discussion of terms and 'Safe Words'. For example, with a Sub/Little I see , 'No' is used as part of the dynamic. Part of the fantasy. I would say as part of her *** fantasy. She has a specific safe word she uses. It is agreed upon before. It is her way, she likes to be used and she has the same way with men she has been with. I won't call myself a Dom because I am not. I am a switch, because want to explore both sides. Others are Doms. She is in negotiations with Strict Dom and she will use the same parameters. 

I understand the danger of Dominants going too far. I cannot accurately comment on that as I have not the experience. 

I also understand your point. The Submissive must be able to trust the Dominant. Without the 'No' or safe word, things can turn nasty.

[CopperKnob]

2 minutes ago, DaddyBear63 said:

You missed the point of what I am saying. I never said anything about changing the English language.  'No' should mean 'No' if that is the agreed term to stop. This is why I mentioned about frank discussion of terms and 'Safe Words'. For example, with a Sub/Little I see , 'No' is used as part of the dynamic. Part of the fantasy. I would say as part of her *** fantasy. She has a specific safe word she uses. It is agreed upon before. It is her way, she likes to be used and she has the same way with men she has been with. I won't call myself a Dom because I am not. I am a switch, because want to explore both sides. Others are Doms. She is in negotiations with Strict Dom and she will use the same parameters. 

I understand the danger of Dominants going too far. I cannot accurately comment on that as I have not the experience. 

I also understand your point. The Submissive must be able to trust the Dominant. Without the 'No' or safe word, things can turn nasty.

You missed the point of the post which does not provide any indication of a dynamic or negotiations which you mention being at play.

[Deleted Member]

Just now, CopperKnob said:

You missed the point of the post which does not provide any indication of a dynamic or negotiations which you mention being at play.

I don't think so. I just wanted to put in my opinion on the use of 'No'. I think negotiations are very important. I understand the point you are making. My mind just works and sees it a bit differently to you.