The blank check of consent

[A Desert Rose]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not - hasn't "what is TPE" been done to death? I figured it was my own confusion that still has me questioning the issue.

Yes, I'm serious. I think it would be a good thread considering all the new posters we have here now.

And tell me, what threads haven't been done to death? I think I've posted at least 18 times to 'what led me to BDSM', or 17 variations on that theme... LOL

New people have ideas/concerns that are new to them. ;-)

 

[Etoile]

Yes, I'm serious. I think it would be a good thread considering all the new posters we have here now.

And tell me, what threads haven't been done to death? I think I've posted at least 18 times to 'what led me to BDSM', or 17 variations on that theme... LOL

New people have ideas/concerns that are new to them. ;-)

TPE: Alternative Realities - I mostly paraphrased my earlier post.

 

[serijules]

Although I liked your post and Seri's before it, I still get nervous every time I say my D/s relationship is a TPE relationship. I think that some people on this board, when I say that, think "how can that be, she is poly and it's a long-distance relationship, how can that be TPE?" The reason I get nervous is because I don't have an answer for them. I don't know how to make our version of TPE make sense to other people. I sometimes wonder if I'm deluding myself, and it's not really TPE, but what is "really" TPE? I don't know. Maybe this is for another thread.

My relationship is very similar to yours in many ways and I think of it as TPE....the distance and the poly are just hardships we deal with along the way, not characteristics that lessen the power that is exchanged. It's just adjusted a bit from the "norm".

I don't try to explain it anymore because like you, I don't really have an answer, I just know what is and what works because I live it. That's answer enough for me.

 

[A Desert Rose]

TPE: Alternative Realities - I mostly paraphrased my earlier post.

Yes I see that. I really think that considering the amount of new posters and the amount of them in LDRs and/or not in 24/7 relationships, it could turn into an interesting thread.

Sorry to RJ for this hijack. I really have nothing to offer regarding this thread except to say that spat or not, if I'm told to suck cock or spin on my head, that's what I do.

 

[graceanne]

I have to say, now that I've had time to read it, that this was a great discussion. I had lotsa stuff to say at first, but it was all said by other people. Quite frankly it just reinforces why I choose to label myself as a sub and not a slave. Cause if K and I were in a fight and he told me to suck his dick I'd laugh at him. One of the rules set up when we went into this relationship is if he goes looking for a fight he doesn't get to bitch when I give it to him.

 

[RJMasters]

Thank you to all for contributing to the discussion thus far. I feel it is a good one for many reasons. All of your responses have given me something to think about.

My thoughts.

Marquis's post was a good one. though I do agree with many points that many have made, I think I agree mostly with what Marquis had to say.

I think back on many of the conversations I have had here, and I am reminded that I have often held the position that consent must be a black or white issue. I held that position because I felt it is the obligation of those involved to make it black and white rather than leave in the grey to skirt responsibility. I still feel that way to some degree, and think that consent should be black and white at the relationship level, so that...the two in the relationship can operate in the grey area that comes in the day to day living. As I am beginning to see this more clearly, I am reminded that I have been less than fair to some in the past regarding this issue.

Moving on to my next observation which I have taken from all the responses, is that I am beginning to see a clearer distinction between someone saying "I am this person's submissive" and a person saying "I am owned." This has shifted a few fundamental premises in my thinking and has changed my perspective on some things.

I agree that by changing some of the variables of the example I gave will no doubt change what the likely results could be. As Netzach said, it could be the best possible thing to do at that given moment, or it could also be one of the most damaging. I think in part that is one of the very reasons why I wanted to use that example and why I wasn't necessarily taking a pro or con position on it.

I am currently pulling a double shift working through the night, but wanted to take a break and contribute to the thread. I will when I have more time go back and respond to some of the individual posts. There are a number I would like to comment on, but my blanket thanks to all will have to suffice for now until I have more time.

 

[JMohegan]

I think back on many of the conversations I have had here, and I am reminded that I have often held the position that consent must be a black or white issue. I held that position because I felt it is the obligation of those involved to make it black and white rather than leave in the grey to skirt responsibility. I still feel that way to some degree, and think that consent should be black and white at the relationship level, so that...the two in the relationship can operate in the grey area that comes in the day to day living.

RJ, what does the phrase "at the relationship level" mean to you in this context?

I ask because to me consent "at the relationship level" is one of the fuzziest topics of all.

I don't do M/s and I don't do TPE, though I do consider my relationships D/s and 24/7. As a practical matter, what that means is that there is an almost constant need to delineate between areas in which I have the right to maintain control, and areas in which I do not.

This sounds more complicated than it actually is over the long term, since most of the kinks & confusion work themselves out over time. However, in the early stages of this type of relationship the lines can seem blurry indeed and it's real easy to find yourself in a situation in which your partner thinks your behavior is out of bounds.

At an even more basic level, i.e. whether or not a person chooses to remain in the relationship itself, the issue of freely given and fully informed consent may be murky at times.

Is there such a thing as voluntarily remaining in a relationship for the wrong reasons? Sure, an adult bears responsibility for her decision to do so, but does her partner also bear responsibility for coercion or extortion or any other less than saintly means used to prevent the other's exit?

If so, what exactly is coercion, how do you know if it is being applied, and if it is present then does this violate the notion that consent has been freely given?

Even something like marriage, which seems so black and white (i.e., you either are or you are not), is a concept that might be considered grey indeed.

Legal issues aside, what does it mean to be married? Those vague marriage vows give little or no indication of the guidelines or rules being agreed to by husband and wife, and this vagueness has very signficant implications for everything from Clinton-style dancing all the way down to issues surrounding that pile of dishes in the sink.

I understand your concern that some may use grey as an excuse to skirt responsibility. But another way to look at it is to say that refusal to acknowledge the grey is one hallmark of the truly disreputable. Consider the abusive husband who uses his wife's continued presence in the household as de facto consent to the regular beatings that occur.

The bottom line is: There is no adequate substitute for a sane and ethical Top/Dominant who genuinely cares for his mate, and no safeword or set of limits or demands on the part of the submissive/bottom that can make up for lack of the same.

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, what does the phrase "at the relationship level" mean to you in this context?

I ask because to me consent "at the relationship level" is one of the fuzziest topics of all.

I don't do M/s and I don't do TPE, though I do consider my relationships D/s and 24/7. As a practical matter, what that means is that there is an almost constant need to delineate between areas in which I have the right to maintain control, and areas in which I do not.

This sounds more complicated than it actually is over the long term, since most of the kinks & confusion work themselves out over time. However, in the early stages of this type of relationship the lines can seem blurry indeed and it's real easy to find yourself in a situation in which your partner thinks your behavior is out of bounds.

At an even more basic level, i.e. whether or not a person chooses to remain in the relationship itself, the issue of freely given and fully informed consent may be murky at times.

Is there such a thing as voluntarily remaining in a relationship for the wrong reasons? Sure, an adult bears responsibility for her decision to do so, but does her partner also bear responsibility for coercion or extortion or any other less than saintly means used to prevent the other's exit?

If so, what exactly is coercion, how do you know if it is being applied, and if it is present then does this violate the notion that consent has been freely given?

Even something like marriage, which seems so black and white (i.e., you either are or you are not), is a concept that might be considered grey indeed.

Legal issues aside, what does it mean to be married? Those vague marriage vows give little or no indication of the guidelines or rules being agreed to by husband and wife, and this vagueness has very signficant implications for everything from Clinton-style dancing all the way down to issues surrounding that pile of dishes in the sink.

I understand your concern that some may use grey as an excuse to skirt responsibility. But another way to look at it is to say that refusal to acknowledge the grey is one hallmark of the truly disreputable. Consider the abusive husband who uses his wife's continued presence in the household as de facto consent to the regular beatings that occur.

The bottom line is: There is no adequate substitute for a sane and ethical Top/Dominant who genuinely cares for his mate, and no safeword or set of limits or demands on the part of the submissive/bottom that can make up for lack of the same.

Ok I am firing on about one cyclinder here after 48 hours of no sleep so to be honest I didn't understand or couldn't follow much of what yu wrote above. Perhaps after some sleep and a re-read I will be able to make better sense of it, however I can answer the first questions which was.

"what does the phrase "at the relationship level" mean to me in this context?"

The way I meant it was simply that at the beginning of a relationship when two people are going to enter into a D/s or a M/s type of relationship, they had better of worked out some things between them prior to a commitment being made. Meaning simply that over a peroid of time they find out if they are compatible. Certainly they will not know everything at this stage of the game, but they better know enough from which to lay a foundation of trust. That foundation will more than likely determine the level of consent that is agreed to at the time the commitment is made.

This is going to shift, grow, stretch ect... as the relationship progresses, however, the best way I can put it into words is....that at the relationship level there is an agreed upon understanding between two in a PE type of relationship. This acts as an overiding principle in the day to day living that goes on.

With this in place, it allows for two to have freedom to deal with the grey areas which are going to arise in the ebb and flow. If it didn't, then they would constantly be seeking to know if consent is present at every turn. To me this would seriously restrict any kind of natural expression of what it means to be dominant or submissive in the first place.

I hope that made sense given that I almost fell asleep twice while writing it. Got to go get some coffee and step ouside for some cool fresh air.

 

[D's mariposa]

I think back on many of the conversations I have had here, and I am reminded that I have often held the position that consent must be a black or white issue. I held that position because I felt it is the obligation of those involved to make it black and white rather than leave in the grey to skirt responsibility. I still feel that way to some degree, and think that consent should be black and white at the relationship level, so that...the two in the relationship can operate in the grey area that comes in the day to day living. As I am beginning to see this more clearly, I am reminded that I have been less than fair to some in the past regarding this issue.

I think I may have been one of the ones you wrestled with about the grey areas...

I've always been one of the ones arguing that it's not black and white. When we first started being exclusive, we began a process of negotiation. Our relationship evolved to the point of collaring and marriage. At the time I accepted his collar, I accepted his control over our lives together. With this acceptance came the knowledge that my Master wants what's best for me, and I can trust him to care for me. Pretty much all negotiation ceased at this time, and this is where the blank check comes in. I still have some trust issues that we're working on. But that's another thread. Suffice to say, he's met my family, knows what my childhood was like, and realizes that this is not going to be easy for us. The collaring preceded the moving in together by several months. With the collar came the blank check, and with the moving came the grey areas. In my mind, consent can only be black and white to the extent that we can control our day to day lives. When you introduce variables that are not under your control such as jobs, accidents, emergencies and the like, the colors start to run together. There's no rule that can cover every circumstance, so you have to be flexible. I feel that insisting on black and white rules and then hiding behind them when things went awry is irresponsible and escapist. One of the few Nuns that I liked at my school as a kid, said told us in Catechism class that "We give you an ideal to strive for, but we understand that life is seldom ideal. Do the best you can." Though the Church and I have long since parted ways, I've found this advice to be applicable in my current life.

(As an aside, the Nun in question left the teaching orders because the Church swung back towards a more conservative view, and compassionate Catechism went out the window. It was "our way, or the highway to Hell Baby!" She's now in charge of Novices at a local nunnery.)

 

[Netzach]

RJ, what does the phrase "at the relationship level" mean to you in this context?

I ask because to me consent "at the relationship level" is one of the fuzziest topics of all.

I don't do M/s and I don't do TPE, though I do consider my relationships D/s and 24/7. As a practical matter, what that means is that there is an almost constant need to delineate between areas in which I have the right to maintain control, and areas in which I do not.

This sounds more complicated than it actually is over the long term, since most of the kinks & confusion work themselves out over time. However, in the early stages of this type of relationship the lines can seem blurry indeed and it's real easy to find yourself in a situation in which your partner thinks your behavior is out of bounds.

At an even more basic level, i.e. whether or not a person chooses to remain in the relationship itself, the issue of freely given and fully informed consent may be murky at times.

Is there such a thing as voluntarily remaining in a relationship for the wrong reasons? Sure, an adult bears responsibility for her decision to do so, but does her partner also bear responsibility for coercion or extortion or any other less than saintly means used to prevent the other's exit?

If so, what exactly is coercion, how do you know if it is being applied, and if it is present then does this violate the notion that consent has been freely given?

Even something like marriage, which seems so black and white (i.e., you either are or you are not), is a concept that might be considered grey indeed.

Legal issues aside, what does it mean to be married? Those vague marriage vows give little or no indication of the guidelines or rules being agreed to by husband and wife, and this vagueness has very signficant implications for everything from Clinton-style dancing all the way down to issues surrounding that pile of dishes in the sink.

I understand your concern that some may use grey as an excuse to skirt responsibility. But another way to look at it is to say that refusal to acknowledge the grey is one hallmark of the truly disreputable. Consider the abusive husband who uses his wife's continued presence in the household as de facto consent to the regular beatings that occur.

The bottom line is: There is no adequate substitute for a sane and ethical Top/Dominant who genuinely cares for his mate, and no safeword or set of limits or demands on the part of the submissive/bottom that can make up for lack of the same.

Coercion is one of the muddiest ideas of all. I think if any D says "I never coerce" he's fundamentally full of shit. Benevolence is hoped for - but coercion is HOW we get consent for 9/10ths of the wacked out shit that we like to do. What's it all about except to constantly pit devotion and emotional investment in me, against the slave's self interest and better normal judgement and actually repeatedly win out?

 

[Netzach]

I think I may have been one of the ones you wrestled with about the grey areas...

I've always been one of the ones arguing that it's not black and white. When we first started being exclusive, we began a process of negotiation. Our relationship evolved to the point of collaring and marriage. At the time I accepted his collar, I accepted his control over our lives together. With this acceptance came the knowledge that my Master wants what's best for me, and I can trust him to care for me. Pretty much all negotiation ceased at this time, and this is where the blank check comes in. I still have some trust issues that we're working on. But that's another thread. Suffice to say, he's met my family, knows what my childhood was like, and realizes that this is not going to be easy for us. The collaring preceded the moving in together by several months. With the collar came the blank check, and with the moving came the grey areas. In my mind, consent can only be black and white to the extent that we can control our day to day lives. When you introduce variables that are not under your control such as jobs, accidents, emergencies and the like, the colors start to run together. There's no rule that can cover every circumstance, so you have to be flexible. I feel that insisting on black and white rules and then hiding behind them when things went awry is irresponsible and escapist. One of the few Nuns that I liked at my school as a kid, said told us in Catechism class that "We give you an ideal to strive for, but we understand that life is seldom ideal. Do the best you can." Though the Church and I have long since parted ways, I've found this advice to be applicable in my current life.

(As an aside, the Nun in question left the teaching orders because the Church swung back towards a more conservative view, and compassionate Catechism went out the window. It was "our way, or the highway to Hell Baby!" She's now in charge of Novices at a local nunnery.)

Your Nun sounds cool. I try to manage my peeps with that outlook.

 

[FurryFury]

I would like to hear your thoughts on this...

There are many things that would be considered to be normal consented to activities within a D/s or M/s relationship. For an example, requesting or demanding a blowjob might be something that would fall normally under the relationship's consent, and most of the time would be something eagerly done.

But suppose that a bit of a spat breaks out, and in the midst of the arguement the dominant/master says....somthing to the effect of....

"I don't want to hear another word come out of that mouth, get over here right now! Get down and open your mouth."

Then they shove their cock into their mouth and tell them to suck on it.

My question is, this would be something normally considered consentual, but given the circumstances due to the argument, consent would not be present at that moment on the part of the submissive.

What are your thoughts concerning this? Does the blank check of consent apply here? The actviity is certainly within limits.

I am not stating a pro or con position, I just want to start a discussion to see what others have to say about something like this.

Personally I find the situation has some rather hot aspects to it. I think what might even be hotter is to allow the argument to continue but only as long as she has my cock in her mouth while she continues to talk. I don't know why hearing the words, "fucking bastard" being mumbled at from lips wrapped around my cock, I just do But aside from the issue of whether its hot or not, I would still like to hear what you think about how this falls within the normal parameters of consent in the relationship, but in the moment consent is not really there.

It takes a lot to get me really mad. When I am I don't want to look or touch the other person, period.

I would find it difficult to respond well to such an order.

Fury

 

[JMohegan]

Ok I am firing on about one cyclinder here after 48 hours of no sleep so to be honest I didn't understand or couldn't follow much of what yu wrote above. Perhaps after some sleep and a re-read I will be able to make better sense of it, however I can answer the first questions which was.

"what does the phrase "at the relationship level" mean to me in this context?"

The way I meant it was simply that at the beginning of a relationship when two people are going to enter into a D/s or a M/s type of relationship, they had better of worked out some things between them prior to a commitment being made. Meaning simply that over a peroid of time they find out if they are compatible. Certainly they will not know everything at this stage of the game, but they better know enough from which to lay a foundation of trust. That foundation will more than likely determine the level of consent that is agreed to at the time the commitment is made.

This is going to shift, grow, stretch ect... as the relationship progresses, however, the best way I can put it into words is....that at the relationship level there is an agreed upon understanding between two in a PE type of relationship. This acts as an overiding principle in the day to day living that goes on.

With this in place, it allows for two to have freedom to deal with the grey areas which are going to arise in the ebb and flow. If it didn't, then they would constantly be seeking to know if consent is present at every turn. To me this would seriously restrict any kind of natural expression of what it means to be dominant or submissive in the first place.

I hope that made sense given that I almost fell asleep twice while writing it. Got to go get some coffee and step ouside for some cool fresh air.

Yes, that made sense and in many ways you are preaching to the choir here. The foundation of trust can only be established with time and familiarity, but it is essential to the health and sustainability of the relationship. See Beachgurl's comments in post 45, about shared goals & expectations and people in established relationships being well matched, which were right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

But compatability and trustworthiness are still nebulous terms. And no matter how carefully I try to paint the "agreed upon understanding" in black and white, I'm still just using words and intangible concepts to describe something that can only truly be understood in the actual, physical, day-to-day experience.

In addition....

There's no rule that can cover every circumstance, so you have to be flexible. I feel that insisting on black and white rules and then hiding behind them when things went awry is irresponsible and escapist. One of the few Nuns that I liked at my school as a kid, said told us in Catechism class that "We give you an ideal to strive for, but we understand that life is seldom ideal. Do the best you can."

Bingo. And very nicely put.

 

[D's mariposa]

Your Nun sounds cool. I try to manage my peeps with that outlook.

She's pretty cool. We ran into each other about 20 years later, when she relocated to the same area as me. I never in a million years thought about hangin' out with a Nun by choice. But she's smart and funny and she's one of the few who know the nature of my relationship. She's very cool about it. She feels that there's a lot in common between submission to God and submission to another.

 

[catalina_francisco]

For us, the agreed upon terms at the time of giving up any choice to consent does not apply in the sense I get it is understood by some. I knew him well, he knew me well, but we are on a journey and part of that journey means changes will happen for both of us. By giving up my right to have consent sought for anything which came after entering TPE, I also acknowledged that with those changes he may change fundamental parts of our relationship and terms as well as previous limits he held, but I on the other hand would not enjoy that same right. I might decide I would prefer not to do xyz, or claim he wasn't into it when I agreed to be TPE, but it really doesn't hold water any longer because he does not need my consent or permission for anything. That being said, he will usually take my feelings and health into consideration, but there have been times when he has still chosen to take the path which he knew would cause me significant difficulty, if not emotional, psychological, and/or physical damage of a lasting kind. Being TPE means I accepted that was part of the risk involved in turning over such power and choice and which is why he didn't accept it until he felt sure I had rethought it thoroughly and understood what I was agreeing to, and yes, in circumstances RJ put up as a scenario I might be difficult in some way, but I also could expect to be punished for that difficulty in a way which would make me think twice in future.

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

Coercion is one of the muddiest ideas of all. I think if any D says "I never coerce" he's fundamentally full of shit. Benevolence is hoped for - but coercion is HOW we get consent for 9/10ths of the wacked out shit that we like to do. What's it all about except to constantly pit devotion and emotional investment in me, against the slave's self interest and better normal judgement and actually repeatedly win out?

Yup. I absolutely agree.

And the questions at the relationship level become: How much is too much coercion? The effects may seem subtle or impermanent in the moment, but they definitely build over time.

Where is the line between an abusive husband and a guy in a consensual D/s relationship? Sometimes, it's really hard to tell.

Though I understand KC's comment about worrying too much, I actually have spent a considerable amount of time contemplating the difference between being an abusive partner and a responsible mate.

Frankly, the idea of a Dominant who does *not* wrestle with this issue on a periodic basis gives me considerable pause.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

While I understand the point seri and catalina are trying to make, I think my point was being missed.

Within the context of our relationships, there can be, and usually are, things that are "deal breakers." Lines that we, as human beings simply will not cross, not for ourselves, not for our children (if you have any), not for friends or family, not for love of country, not for an owner.

That's reality.

Yes, I am speaking of absolutes. Yes, in most cases it would be probably be an extreme circumstance, something you could not imagine your Owner doing in a thousand years. Something so out of character and far fetched that it hasn't crossed your mind to consider as a probability let alone a possibility.

Like a dear friend of mine who found out less than 3 months before walking down the aisle and marrying the man she loved, who she had been in a relationship with for 8 years, had lived with day in and day out for most of that time, was a pedophile and child molester.

Game over, consent was withdrawn, she said "see ya." That was a deal breaker.

Can any of you honestly tell me that you would commit murder on an order from your owner? Tell me you would consent to have sex with a minor? Tell me you would turn your own minor child over to your Owner to be a sex toy for the Owner?

Don't argue that your owner would never do something like that, that they would never ask that of you. Don't argue that you know them so well that your values and ideals are compatible. That's not a blank check of consent, that's conditional consent. If there exists one, single solitary act, regardless of how far fetched or extreme, that you as a human being would absolutely refuse to commit under any circumstances for yourself, let alone before doing it at someone elses request, then you have conditional consent in your relationship.

In my book it's that simple. You can't "carve out exceptions". It either is, or isn't, absolute. And so far, in my experience, I've never met anyone I would consider a healthy, complete human being, who didn't have some exceptions.

Therefore, no one has a "blank check of consent" to work with.

Yes, it's arguing semantics. The premise was for a "blank check". That means no exceptions, no conditions, no holding back. If there is nothing, absolutely literally, nothing you would deny your owner, then I will grant you have given them the blank check. Otherwise, you've just given them a lot of room to write the check, it really isn't blank.

 

[the captians wench]

While I understand the point seri and catalina are trying to make, I think my point was being missed.

Within the context of our relationships, there can be, and usually are, things that are "deal breakers." Lines that we, as human beings simply will not cross, not for ourselves, not for our children (if you have any), not for friends or family, not for love of country, not for an owner.

That's reality.

Yes, I am speaking of absolutes. Yes, in most cases it would be probably be an extreme circumstance, something you could not imagine your Owner doing in a thousand years. Something so out of character and far fetched that it hasn't crossed your mind to consider as a probability let alone a possibility.

Like a dear friend of mine who found out less than 3 months before walking down the aisle and marrying the man she loved, who she had been in a relationship with for 8 years, had lived with day in and day out for most of that time, was a pedophile and child molester.

Game over, consent was withdrawn, she said "see ya." That was a deal breaker.

Can any of you honestly tell me that you would commit murder on an order from your owner? Tell me you would consent to have sex with a minor? Tell me you would turn your own minor child over to your Owner to be a sex toy for the Owner?

Don't argue that your owner would never do something like that, that they would never ask that of you. Don't argue that you know them so well that your values and ideals are compatible. That's not a blank check of consent, that's conditional consent. If there exists one, single solitary act, regardless of how far fetched or extreme, that you as a human being would absolutely refuse to commit under any circumstances for yourself, let alone before doing it at someone elses request, then you have conditional consent in your relationship.

In my book it's that simple. You can't "carve out exceptions". It either is, or isn't, absolute. And so far, in my experience, I've never met anyone I would consider a healthy, complete human being, who didn't have some exceptions.

Therefore, no one has a "blank check of consent" to work with.

Yes, it's arguing semantics. The premise was for a "blank check". That means no exceptions, no conditions, no holding back. If there is nothing, absolutely literally, nothing you would deny your owner, then I will grant you have given them the blank check. Otherwise, you've just given them a lot of room to write the check, it really isn't blank.

For some reason these two points kinda make me think about a blank check that was given to a friend of mine. I'm talking real money type check here.

They wrote the amount in, but the bank wouldn't cash it for lack of funds in the account the check was written on.

Seems to me, these two ideas relate.

Not to pic on her or anything, but let's use Cat here. Cat has given F a "blank check" which he can cash in any way he sees fit, in any demonination, so long as Cat has the funds in the bank. If the bank is ethics, law, morality, and sanity, then that would throw out things like pedophilia, murder, grand theft and the like.

So, if F has this idea and wants to cash this blank check of concent and it's something that's unethical by their standards (which have already been istablished to be comparable) then the check will not be cashed until such time as the standards are changed clearing "funds".

Does this make any since or am I totally out in left field?

 

[Evil_Geoff]

BINGO! Absolutely makes sense wench! {{{{{HUG}}}}}

 

[JMohegan]

The way I meant it was simply that at the beginning of a relationship when two people are going to enter into a D/s or a M/s type of relationship, they had better of worked out some things between them prior to a commitment being made.

RJ, I have an example to help illustrate my point of view here. This is an excerpt from a post I wrote on a Marquis thread last summer:

"As I mentioned yesterday, my partners have all had submissive streaks much longer than their masochistic ones. If they had been told in the beginning of the relationship that I would be doing X to them in 6 months, Y in one year, and Z after three, they would have slammed the door in my face and never let the relationship commence.

Some might say that informed consent was therefore lacking, but I don't see it that way. Upfront, they know my rules (the six above, and a few others) and have a general idea of what it means when I say I'm a sadist. But I can't outline X, Y, and Z, because that's something that even I don't know. Each partner is different, and I honestly have no idea in the beginning how far I'll be able to take her.

The fact remains: I have done many things to my partners that they did not know would transpire upfront and would never have consented to on day one. They experienced physical pain, they cried, and they stuck around anyway."

Hopefully that helps you understand where I'm coming from, and one reason why I consider the concept of informed consent at the inception of my relationships to be debatable, i.e. - grey.

I would say that the only black & white rules I have are the ones I lay down for myself. These are not technically established as part of an agreement between a partner and myself, but rather a deal I make within my own head in order to give myself permission to function as a sadist in a personal relationship.

One example is: I do not lie to a partner. Ever.

No lies of convenience. No mindfucks. No exaggerated or empty threats.

This is a huge part of the way I build trust, and it is also an important element of my own personal line between acceptable and unacceptable coercion.

Of course, I tell a partner upfront that I will never make a deliberately false statement to her. And that's true. So you might be tempted to say that "No lying" is a black & white part of my agreement with her.

But what about those lies of omission in the quote above? These render the concept of my honesty with a partner from day one to be quite grey indeed.

 

[catalina_francisco]

While I understand the point seri and catalina are trying to make, I think my point was being missed.

Within the context of our relationships, there can be, and usually are, things that are "deal breakers." Lines that we, as human beings simply will not cross, not for ourselves, not for our children (if you have any), not for friends or family, not for love of country, not for an owner.

That's reality.

Yes, I am speaking of absolutes. Yes, in most cases it would be probably be an extreme circumstance, something you could not imagine your Owner doing in a thousand years. Something so out of character and far fetched that it hasn't crossed your mind to consider as a probability let alone a possibility.

Like a dear friend of mine who found out less than 3 months before walking down the aisle and marrying the man she loved, who she had been in a relationship with for 8 years, had lived with day in and day out for most of that time, was a pedophile and child molester.

Game over, consent was withdrawn, she said "see ya." That was a deal breaker.

Can any of you honestly tell me that you would commit murder on an order from your owner? Tell me you would consent to have sex with a minor? Tell me you would turn your own minor child over to your Owner to be a sex toy for the Owner?

Don't argue that your owner would never do something like that, that they would never ask that of you. Don't argue that you know them so well that your values and ideals are compatible. That's not a blank check of consent, that's conditional consent. If there exists one, single solitary act, regardless of how far fetched or extreme, that you as a human being would absolutely refuse to commit under any circumstances for yourself, let alone before doing it at someone elses request, then you have conditional consent in your relationship.

In my book it's that simple. You can't "carve out exceptions". It either is, or isn't, absolute. And so far, in my experience, I've never met anyone I would consider a healthy, complete human being, who didn't have some exceptions.

Therefore, no one has a "blank check of consent" to work with.

Yes, it's arguing semantics. The premise was for a "blank check". That means no exceptions, no conditions, no holding back. If there is nothing, absolutely literally, nothing you would deny your owner, then I will grant you have given them the blank check. Otherwise, you've just given them a lot of room to write the check, it really isn't blank.

I didn't miss what you were saying EG, just it does not apply to us. I also mentioned the need for some to go to extreme examples such as you have where you ask if I would murder another for him and which I always feel is something brought up by someone who either does not fully understand where we are coming from, has a very misconceived and ignorant idea of TPE, AND that in our world no-one outside our relationship who is non-consenting is included in any order or expectation of our relationship. You see with our brand of D/s, including people who have not given consent is abuse, not BDSM in any form and so it is not even a matter of if it falls under the heading of things one would comply to in a TPE blank check form of D/s because niether of us have the right to fuck with someone elses life just to get our jollies. As was pointed out before, TPE and no limits does not apply to every Tom Dick and Harry on the street, just the people within the relationship, so no, I am not open to orders from you or anyone else, or orders which include non-consenting adults or children which I think would safely cover most of the illegal activities brought up to try and prove the non existance of TPE as a reality such as robbery, assault, paedophelia, rape, murder, incest...you get the picture.

I have never argued a point that I do not at times find it impossible to immediately follow particular orders, but I take them seriously and they are followed even if extra help is needed to make it so. I also did point out 2-3 posts back that for us, entering a TPE relationship meant I could not then pull out the 'oh but when we started being TPE you had previously said you were not interested in xyz, or wouldn't ask abc, so I don't have to do it' card...in fact I said F made me take extra time to reconsider and fully realise what I was committing to and that there was no way back once committed to, and I did so fully informed and aware there would be things he would ask of me which were not previously expected by one or both of us, and he has, and I have obeyed no matter how painful physically, emotionally or psychologically. For us, once you give up the right to consent, you have forfeited that right, not just given it up temporarily until things get difficult or don't go the way I want or would prefer...I think I said it before, why bother if that is how it is to be because basically it then to me is a relationship where I am able to apply limits of my choice, choose to disobey and not try, and basically call the shots as to what is going to happen and what is not. We didn't want that type relatiionship so we don't have it. It si very simple really, not to mention fulfilling.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

For some reason these two points kinda make me think about a blank check that was given to a friend of mine. I'm talking real money type check here.

They wrote the amount in, but the bank wouldn't cash it for lack of funds in the account the check was written on.

Seems to me, these two ideas relate.

Not to pic on her or anything, but let's use Cat here. Cat has given F a "blank check" which he can cash in any way he sees fit, in any demonination, so long as Cat has the funds in the bank. If the bank is ethics, law, morality, and sanity, then that would throw out things like pedophilia, murder, grand theft and the like.

So, if F has this idea and wants to cash this blank check of concent and it's something that's unethical by their standards (which have already been istablished to be comparable) then the check will not be cashed until such time as the standards are changed clearing "funds".

Does this make any since or am I totally out in left field?

Doesn't make total sense to me because one of the main standpoints, and one of the few you will find people in agreement on, is no-one is to be included in any BDSM act to which they have not consented, so I think you will agree, that largely covers all those ridiculous illegal acts thrown out to try and disprove something another cannot understand because it doesn't fit their world. We all make our choices but if EG likes to include non-consenting people in his BDSM, I am sure as a former policeman he knows what he can expect in terms of the law and society. There are quiet a few threads here alone on what constitutes BDSM and what constitutes abuse and they are all in agreement that acts with non-consenting participants, particularly where violence or illegal activities are involved, are clearly abusive, not D/s...so then how can one apply it to BDSM practice and use it to demonstrate TPE does not really exist? To me it is sort of like comparing cricket and football...both include balls in play but in one you use your feet to move the ball, in the other you use a bat....to then say cricket isn't cricket or real because they don't kick the ball like they do in football just doesn't make sense.

As an aside, in terms of sanity, while he doesn't want me any more nuts than I am, he has pushed me to areas where I have totally lost it mentally with effects which lasted more than that day, and not been persuaded to back off...he feels he is able to handle the results, I trust him to know, and if not, that was something I accepted as a possibility..no-one is perfect, he could make a mistake just as easily as anyone else can.

Catalina

 

[Daddyslilpet]

While I understand the point seri and catalina are trying to make, I think my point was being missed.

Within the context of our relationships, there can be, and usually are, things that are "deal breakers." Lines that we, as human beings simply will not cross, not for ourselves, not for our children (if you have any), not for friends or family, not for love of country, not for an owner.

That's reality.

Yes, I am speaking of absolutes. Yes, in most cases it would be probably be an extreme circumstance, something you could not imagine your Owner doing in a thousand years. Something so out of character and far fetched that it hasn't crossed your mind to consider as a probability let alone a possibility.

Like a dear friend of mine who found out less than 3 months before walking down the aisle and marrying the man she loved, who she had been in a relationship with for 8 years, had lived with day in and day out for most of that time, was a pedophile and child molester.

Game over, consent was withdrawn, she said "see ya." That was a deal breaker.

Can any of you honestly tell me that you would commit murder on an order from your owner? Tell me you would consent to have sex with a minor? Tell me you would turn your own minor child over to your Owner to be a sex toy for the Owner?

Don't argue that your owner would never do something like that, that they would never ask that of you. Don't argue that you know them so well that your values and ideals are compatible. That's not a blank check of consent, that's conditional consent. If there exists one, single solitary act, regardless of how far fetched or extreme, that you as a human being would absolutely refuse to commit under any circumstances for yourself, let alone before doing it at someone elses request, then you have conditional consent in your relationship.

In my book it's that simple. You can't "carve out exceptions". It either is, or isn't, absolute. And so far, in my experience, I've never met anyone I would consider a healthy, complete human being, who didn't have some exceptions.

Therefore, no one has a "blank check of consent" to work with.

Yes, it's arguing semantics. The premise was for a "blank check". That means no exceptions, no conditions, no holding back. If there is nothing, absolutely literally, nothing you would deny your owner, then I will grant you have given them the blank check. Otherwise, you've just given them a lot of room to write the check, it really isn't blank.

Very well said. I've been trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into the right words and you've done it quite nicely for me.

I too have a hard time believing in the concept on the "blank check of consent" for much the same reason as Geoff has stated above. There is always something that a person will absolutely not do no matter what it's called being human.

Should Daddy and I be in the midst of a fight the last thing that I want to hear come out of His mouth is for me to get on my knees and suck Him cock. It would cause a serious breech in trust in our relationship. I trust him not to abuse His power over me and to do something like that in the heat of anger would be an abuse of His power in our relationship.

The way a situation like that is handled for us, is we take a time out from each other to cool off then we discuss things, work out the problem and move on.

 

[the captians wench]

Doesn't make sense to me because one of the main standpoints, and one of the few you will find people in agreement on, is no-one is to be included in any BDSM act to which they have not consented, so I think you will agree, that largely covers all those ridiculous illegal acts thrown out to try and disprove something another cannot understand because it doesn't fit their world. We all make our choices but if EG likes to include non-consenting people in his BDSM, I am sure as a former policeman he knows what he can expect in terms of the law and society. There are quiet a few threads here alone on what constitutes BDSM and what constitutes abuse and they are all in agreement that acts with non-consenting participants, particularly where violence or illegal activities are involved, are clearly abusive, not D/s...so then how can one apply it to BDSM practice and use it to demonstrate TPE does not really exist? As an aside, in terms of sanity, while he doesn't want me any more nuts than I am, he has pushed me to areas where I have totally lost it mentally with effects which lasted more than that day, and not been persuaded to back off...he feels he is able to handle the results, I trust him to know, and if not, that was something I accepted as a possibility..no-one is perfect, he could make a mistake just as easily as anyone else can.

Catalina

I'm sorry Cat, I wasn't actually trying to prove that TPE doesn't exist, infact, I agree that EG was using extreams in his examples, and that was really something I was trying to put in perspective, if only for my own understanding.

the extreams, the pedophilia and non concenting outsiders and such are the non accessable funds. These are things that are there, but that "the bank" ,being his own since of morality and decency not to mention the deffinitions he's astablished, won't let him touch.

So while you've said that he could have access to anything in this account, these are things that he's istablished are non accessable. now that also leaves room for some "funds" to clear where his own squick factor (which would also be apart of those non accessable funds) changes.

I think I may have confused myself.

But then i always did hate agrueing sumantics. I really do agree with you on these points for the most part Cat.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

Very well said. I've been trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into the right words and you've done it quite nicely for me.

I too have a hard time believing in the concept on the "blank check of consent" for much the same reason as Geoff has stated above. There is always something that a person will absolutely not do no matter what it's called being human.

Before I get jumped on for agreeing with Geoff on this part of my last post, let me clarify, I was not meaning illegal activities when I said "There is always something that a person will absolutely not do no matter what it's called being human."

I in no way believe that anything illegal belongs under the umbrella of BDSM and will never feel that way. Just so the record is clear here.