The Breakfast Thread

The Breakfast Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

lovingpet -> The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 12:53:18 PM)
I know that title didn't give anyone a clue what this thread was about. Good!!!!! Now that I've lured you into my trap, I want to know, which came first? The chicken or the egg? In this case I mean these figuratively, of course, and the actual menu is consent or free will. Can you have one without the other? Is one invalidate by the lack of the other? Based on your answers to the above questions (which by all means feel free to extrapolate further if you desire), how does this impact any moral, legal, or intellectual agruments for/against certain practices be them M/s, D/s, BDSM in general, or otherwise? Have fun! lovingpet

DemonKia -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 12:55:20 PM)
The much dreaded 'consent' thread. Excellent! [sm=popcorn.gif] ETA: Ah, shit. I immediately felt guilty & obligated to actually address the OP rather than simply encouraging more opportunities for wildlife-documentary style antics to ensue . . . . Okay. I think that adults who meet fairly minimal standards of competence (which may or may not be encompassed in current legal, medical, psych, or other versions) & who are making fully informed decisions, should be allowed fairly broad leeway as to what they can do in private . . . . . & public stuff could be more liberal -- I'm pro-nudity, tho' I think most sexual expression is best kept in either private or quasi-public venues where others have given explicit, informed consent to observe & / or participate . . . . . But, holy geezly crow, that's actually lots more vague than it might seem on first inspection. (lol . . Before I start gettin' my thoughts jumped by any of my friends, the usual suspects [8D], I'm gonna bold all those hot-spots where whole hosts of arguments can break out . . . . There.) Now. Let the fun begin . . . . . . ETA2: As for the philosophical question about free will . .. . . I don't like philosophy, sorry . . . . . Y'all have to do that one on your own . . . . Praxis over theory, thanks . .. . . )

RCdc -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 12:58:51 PM)
Aw Kia... I hope ya gonna share....[sm=insane.gif] the.dark.

lovingpet -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemonKia The much dreaded 'consent' thread. Excellent! [sm=popcorn.gif] Scooch over and share that popcorn darn it! And dark, you are just gonna hafta settle down up there. The show hasn't even begun! LOL lovingpet

AquaticSub -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:03:11 PM)
~Fast Reply~ Oh god... it's a mental masturbation consent thread. Personally, if one doesn't have free will then I don't think they can consent, not to just a BDSM relationship either. I'd continue the self-stimulation further but it's four days before my wedding and my brain is mush. Maybe I'll check in sometime during the honeymoon. [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:04:52 PM)
you have free will to consent (or any variation from there). you do not have consent to free will. (rather the only way to fix this miasma would be) you do not have to consent to free will. But as a slave, you must perform oral services, regardless of consent or free will. Got it? Get it? Good. Ron

DemonKia -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:16:32 PM)
Aw, Ron, ya sexy flirt, you . . . . . . [;)] Darcy - it's in that first post, I was edit-adding it while you where requesting, or near enough . . .. .

RCdc -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:31:56 PM)
Aw.... now Kias made me feel guilty for not responding to the OP.[;)]smoochies da lovingone Consent is a buzz word (well duh... aren't I obvious) And free will is the greatest example of just how much a buzz word it is. the.dark.

leadership527 -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:32:39 PM)
Wow, you are a glutton for punishment pet laughs. You thought you'd come right off the 24x7 thread into a consent thread? I'm thinking masochist. In my mind, they go together. I do not see how someone can consent to anything if they never had free will to start with. That would be called "under duress" and is (for good reasons) not legally admissable in a wide variety of contexts. On the other hand, if one is not able to consent to give away free will, then apparently the freedom to do that, at least, was never there to start with. In addition, it is important to remember that aside from the 2+ main actors, there is also the shadowy "society" that is ever present and reasonably has to consent also. Unless you live on a desert island, off the grid totally, then it is hypocritical to accept the benefits that society offers without also granting some sort of say in your doings. I think critical in all of this as a crisp understanding of what the word "free" means (as in free will). It most certainly does not mean "the ability to do whatever I feel like within the limits of my physical capability". All of us have absolute freedom impinged on in a wide variety of ways by virtue of living with other humans. For instance, I am not free to stop paying taxes much as I personally want to laughs. I think we use the word "free" when the various ways our freedoms are curtailed mostly match with how we expect them to be curtailed. If those two things get out of sync too far, then we start feeling "not free". This, in essence is how a slave ends up feeling "free". It's because his or her expectations match the reality they find themselves in.

IronBear -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:42:24 PM)
Can't have "FREE" Will! Will is the son of one of my mates and neighbour. There is no way the bugger is free. If he doesn't charge y'all his father and I will. he does a bloody great job of mowing the lawns and cleaning up, the garden. No one is allowed to "Fire at Will" either.

leadership527 -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 1:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Can't have "FREE" Will! Will is the son of one of my mates and neighbour. There is no way the bugger is free. If he doesn't charge y'all his father and I will. he does a bloody great job of mowing the lawns and cleaning up, the garden. No one is allowed to "Fire at Will" either. laughs All joking aside, the word "will" is often used in BDSM circles and it's one of those words like "power" that just resists crisp definition. Heh, for that matter, much like the word "free". But what I know for a fact is that while you cannot free Will, nor can you fire at Will, we do know that you can Free Willy

DesFIP -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 2:26:02 PM)
Consent comes first, more explicitly informed consent. Unless I am able to understand what is happening, and allowed to give my agreement, nothing else will happen. I can be obedient without free will to do otherwise but that doesn't imply freely given consent, it implies duress. In a relationship, as opposed to the abstract, is where I am thinking about this. Inside a d/s relationship I must be allowed to consent and I must understand what I am consenting to. Legally, that holds true also. Which is why a minor cannot take out a credit card, join the armed forces, etc. Nor someone with Alzheimers able to marry and rewrite their will in favor of the new nurse in the memory care facility. They are considered to be too easily swayed and to be unable to understand what they are consenting to.

lovingpet -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 2:35:42 PM)
Smoochies back dark... and as long as that behavior is going on you don't have to settle down at all! [:D] First of all, I will agree that in my opinion both concepts are a bit nebulous at best. I guess we are going to have to stick with the idea that these two things actually do exist (for the sake of argument) and that they have significance. Whether I find either premise credulous is of little consquence in all honesty. Basically, I was thinking through the idea that some posters were putting up earlier that consent could or was the dividing line between what was legal or illegal in some jurisdictions. My immediate thought was that, on that basis, if consent is all that is needed, if it is all spelled out in a document of some kind and signed by the parties, witnesses, and someone of jurisdictional importance, then why isn't that a binding contract even though it covers bdsm themes? The simple answer is that there is no guarantee that the person is actually agreeing and signing without prior, ongoing, or future coersion. Then I started thinking that could well be true in any other number of arenas, so what makes this one so darn special that absolutely no legal document we draft can give effective legal protections to the parties involved. Even if the complete negotiations, drafting, signing, and legal procedures are not only followed, but taped with full audio, it is still in admissible as proof of consent. Why? I have no use for contracts myself, but if one is trying to establish consent and it is really that big of an issue to someone, then this is of some rather major importance. How do you ensure that consent is being given of free will and not coerced in any way? How can it be made clear to others who may wind up having to determine these things that this was the case? It seems to me the moment free will is removed, consent is null and void. The problem is free will can be lost mentally without any perceptible threat and without any intent on the part of the person that comes to be in the "coersive" position. Oh, and Jeff, you know darn well I'm a masochist, but don't you dare be saying anything to that partner of mine. I'm in flagarant denial and he made me do it after all!!!!! LOL. Thanks for everyone's comments so far. I am not actually TRYING to cause trouble, but if it finds me, I won't be terribly surprised either. lovingpet

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 2:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you have free will to consent (or any variation from there). you do not have consent to free will. (rather the only way to fix this miasma would be) you do not have to consent to free will. But as a slave, you must perform oral services, regardless of consent or free will. Got it? Get it? Good. Ron Can I have that in writing please, Ron?

LadyPact -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 3:26:28 PM)
It seems to Me that the boy had free will long before I came along and he had any notion of the term consent when applied to a D/s or M/s dynamic.

Aileen1968 -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 3:30:03 PM)
I free willingly gave him my consent to do anything he wanted to me. I also picked someone who was a great match for me. Makes it easier to give that consent when you really like the other person.

leadership527 -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 4:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet I have no use for contracts myself, but if one is trying to establish consent and it is really that big of an issue to someone, then this is of some rather major importance. How do you ensure that consent is being given of free will and not coerced in any way? How can it be made clear to others who may wind up having to determine these things that this was the case? It seems to me the moment free will is removed, consent is null and void. The problem is free will can be lost mentally without any perceptible threat and without any intent on the part of the person that comes to be in the "coersive" position. No use for contracts? Me too. Consent is a HUGE deal for me. I just don't see how some piece of paper is going to make it any more clear to me than the evidence of my own senses directly. The coercion factor is extremely difficult... I'm dealing with that right now with Carol. Given that ANY preference of mine is automatically coercion to her -- damn that whole wanting to please thing laughs -- it's a really delicate line to be positive about wanting her as my slave and not unduly influence her to agree to it. I don't think there's any simple answers here... especially when dealing with submissive personalities as I noted. Insofar as making it clear to others, it doesn't matter. To my understanding, even if I had a document, signed in blood, with video tape and 3 eye witnesses to testify to it's authenticity, it wouldn't matter. If I hit her and she objects, then it's off to jail with me. You're just plain not allowed to sign away certain rights. Finally, the slippery slope thing? Uh yeah. But it's also a bit of a chimera. Let's look at Carol's and my marriage, sans collar. We've been together a long time and happy most of that time... usually very happy. At this point, without some substantial change, it is literally impossible for Carol to leave... because she's not an idiot laughs. When "free will" is lost to goodness, not badness, I'm not sure we think of it as tragic. :) Oh, and Jeff, you know darn well I'm a masochist, but don't you dare be saying anything to that partner of mine. I'm in flagarant denial and he made me do it after all!!!!! LOL. Thanks for everyone's comments so far. I am not actually TRYING to cause trouble, but if it finds me, I won't be terribly surprised either. lovingpet

DemonKia -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 5:04:52 PM)
With all due respect . . . . . Some of us like negotiation & the contract thing, above & beyond the getting to know each other & all of that, not just in place of . . . . . . . Another layer of formality & ritual & etc . . . . . Agreed, if some n00b downloads slave boilerplate & attempts to mindlessly impose this on anyone who'll stand still for it, yeah, probable fail . . . . . . But, come on, a contract's another opportunity for creativity, expression of self, & etc, akin to crafting one's wedding vows . . . . . . <----- Paperwork fetish? Who? Me? What perverse fancies of black-picket-fenced BDomestic bliss dance in yon head?

lovingpet -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 5:47:03 PM)
As a fun little exercise in getting to know you, I guess it could be fun to draft a contract, but I don't know that it really makes any difference to the dynamic. It probably is one of those things that just isn't my thing. As much as I like "official" stuff it actually surprises me that I don't have much of a yearning for this sort of thing. Different strokes I guess. Now, Jeff, I don't look to others for their approval particularly either when it comes to my relationship. Unfortunately, there are some that can and will make it their business and it leaves dominant people in a situation of facing criminal charges and it leaves a submissive person with his/her life in ruins. Some things we simply cannot consent to according to the law, but by having this cavalier attitude that we don't care what others think, we are making ourselves easy pickins. That balance is kind of the gist of the whole thread. How can one obtain consent without somehow damaging "free will"? Especially in a submissive person who wants to please, it seems almost impossible. Regardless, when a request for consent comes from someone we care about it makes it that little bit more difficult to say no. Sometimes that is the correct answer or the answer we need to give, but there is a tug. I know you are trying to walk this line with Carol right now and I am as much at a loss to suggest what the best course of action is either. This is more a legal question than a philosophical one in my opinion, though it may wax that way at some point. It is an exercise in futility since, legally, regardless people somehow cannot consent to certain things regardless of whether they entered it freely or not. I just am interested in if there is any way to quit just handing these folks their cases though. Is there any way for a dominant to obtain consent without damaging the free will of the submissive? lovingpet

IronBear -> RE: The Breakfast Thread (10/7/2009 7:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Can't have "FREE" Will! Will is the son of one of my mates and neighbour. There is no way the bugger is free. If he doesn't charge y'all his father and I will. he does a bloody great job of mowing the lawns and cleaning up, the garden. No one is allowed to "Fire at Will" either. laughs All joking aside, the word "will" is often used in BDSM circles and it's one of those words like "power" that just resists crisp definition. Heh, for that matter, much like the word "free". But what I know for a fact is that while you cannot free Will, nor can you fire at Will, we do know that you can Free Willy Kindly leave my Willy alone. he is only freed by authorised females.... [:-][;)]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.28125