The blank check of consent

[catalina_francisco]

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.

LOL, I didn't think you were. What I do think some people forget though is that the Dominant in the equation is answerable to the law for his actions against society as in murder, rape, etc., and so to suggest they are in their rights to or could legitimately ask it of a pyl is not only foolish, but it isn't something which anyone seriously sees as within the realms of D/s or BDSM in any form. I also was thinking while soaking in my bubblebath and feeling guilty for not doing the study I have to have done by tomorrow that it might also come down to the foundations of a relationship in terms of believing in the blank check theory and not feeling it is OK to make choices as a pyl as to what you will accept.

For us we were both searching for someone to share our life with 24/7 and TPE, not just a relationship to see where it went....so our focus was both for a relationship AND TPE, not one of the other. Fortunately we found each other, and we had similar ideas of where we wanted to go with the D/s aspects and the commitment of the relationship on romantic mainstream levels. That being said though, part of the reason we love each other so deeply is because of the D/s fit we have and we have discussed it and acknowledged if one of us no longer wanted to be TPE or D/s, they would no longer be the same person we fell in love with and the romantic relationship would suffer and probably die a horrible death. It doesn't mean we do not love each other deeply, but we love each other for who we are which just happens to be D/s and M/s more so than mainstream romantic ideals. Does that make sense?

I think it also helps we have both spent a big portion of our adult alives alone and not in a serious relationship or for periods of time a romantic relationship of any kind. We have learned who we are without another, we have found what it is we really want and need, and we have come to terms with that. We also know we are capable of doing it alone and have quite successfully, so our choices are not driven by a need to have someone fill that gap in our lives as much as we cherish that is what we now have. Who knows, perhaps part of our need to push our own envelope so hard is because we have come from backgrounds which have needed us to face some extremes of survival and so we need that extra tension to feel alive. I know F has had bullets flying over his head as a child trying to protect 2 other siblings without an adult, and I have had some fairly traumatic family, relationship and health issues to survive....those things all put you in a place sometimes others don't understand and which make extremes not so scary anymore.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

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.

It's OK, I'm not in a jumping mood. I acknowledge as always there are things he asks which I cannot immediately comply with, but they remain on the list of things I must find a way to do. Sometimes that may mean he has to use some form of force to hasten it, but to me that is still in the terms of consent as I am not fighting him forcing me or saying no, actually I beg him to at times as it would be much easier than taking the step alone. He doesn't like using force in those circumstances though, so it usually comes back to me getting on with it. Strangely I find it is the little things which are more difficult than the terror inspiring ones which he sometimes comes up with, sometimes just to see if I will accept it, sometimes for real.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

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?

This is a really REALLY nice analogy. I don't see how, when you're willing to bend your moral fiber to its absolute breaking points over another person you don't get to say to the person in question "I'll do anything for you" without a list of "but, would you do it in a box would you do it with a fox" type scenarios coming out.

I'm not scientific about other people's relationships. If someone says she can't leave, I'm not going to point out that of course she can silly it's 2007 and we're in the industrialized West. That's her selected reality. I've seen TPE relationships where, in my estimation, the D is basically hostage to the complex needs and wants and intersections between them of the s, but I'm not going to publicly point out that I think they're totally 'whipped. In that world it's the belief of the participants that the D is final law and the s merely obeys. Cool.

I basically have limited energy as my own relationships are concerned, and I'd rather put energy into playing with H's sexuality and desires than into deciding if we're as "total" as the Joneses.

 

[Marquis]

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

I could've sworn I started a thread on this very topic with a wildly different reaction than what I'm seeing here.

 

[Marquis]

This is a really REALLY nice analogy. I don't see how, when you're willing to bend your moral fiber to its absolute breaking points over another person you don't get to say to the person in question "I'll do anything for you" without a list of "but, would you do it in a box would you do it with a fox" type scenarios coming out.

I'm not scientific about other people's relationships. If someone says she can't leave, I'm not going to point out that of course she can silly it's 2007 and we're in the industrialized West. That's her selected reality. I've seen TPE relationships where, in my estimation, the D is basically hostage to the complex needs and wants and intersections between them of the s, but I'm not going to publicly point out that I think they're totally 'whipped. In that world it's the belief of the participants that the D is final law and the s merely obeys. Cool.

I basically have limited energy as my own relationships are concerned, and I'd rather put energy into playing with H's sexuality and desires than into deciding if we're as "total" as the Joneses.

As usual, I couldn't agree more.

I have never been able to understand the dire necessity with which some seem to feel the need to proclaim their relationship as TPE or M/s.

Hot concepts, certainly, and often employed in my own relationships, but what actual appreciable difference does this make?

I question the sincerity or the sanity of any person who claims an absolute and unconditional transfer of will to another human being.

 

[JMohegan]

I could've sworn I started a thread on this very topic with a wildly different reaction than what I'm seeing here.

Sometimes the abuse is easy to see, Marquis.

In that case, in my opinion, it clearly was.

 

[Marquis]

This is a good thread, it brings up a lot of issues that are really fundamental to the concept of D/s.

I want to add a few comments that may seem like non-sequiturs, but I can relate them in my mind so perhaps you will be able to as well.

I have always found it curious how often D/s relationships appear to put the cart before the horse. To me, all you really need for a D/s relationship is a dom and a sub.

My girlfriend doesn't submit to me because she is my sub, she is my sub because she submits to me.

Why does she submit to me?

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will answer as honestly as I can. I believe she submits to me because she finds me irresistible. By our very chemistry, she finds it difficult to say no to me. This is a power I have over her somewhat inherently.

I dislike the concept of "giving" the power, because I think that's somewhat of an obfuscation of the truth. The power is mine for the taking. If I use that power well, I have more. You could say that she has given me more, but I have just as much made the right moves to take it.

My girlfriend submits to me in ways I'm sure she would've found completely unimaginable when we first met. It has taken a lot to get her to where she is now.

I do not like to say that I have coerced her to submit to me, but I am comfortable saying that consent is something I continue to seduce from her, and plan on doing for a very long time.

 

[Marquis]

Sometimes the abuse is easy to see, Marquis.

In that case, in my opinion, it clearly was.

I don't think anyone ever denied that. I was merely trying to provoke thought on the question of consent and coercion, similar to what is being done here. I suppose I used too extreme of an example.

 

[serijules]

I in no way believe that anything illegal belongs under the umbrella of BDSM and will never feel that way.

This comment is exactly why this argument seems redundant to me.

Illegal actions like murdering someone, abusing a child, whatever....are not a part of BDSM. We are discussing a blank check of consent WITHIN A BDSM RELATIONSHIP between two people. Thereafor, it makes no sense to me to argue semantics on the absolute definition of a word when it has already been stated that we are talking about the blank check of consent within a BDSM relationship. That means between people that have consented to be in the relationship. That does not include innocent children or people on the outside so the so called "blank check of consent" does not extend to those people or to involving those people into the little checkbook here.

 

[myMastersCockSlut]

I love it when....

my Master bosses me around & demands me to suck his cock. We have never had an argument before, but I would still do it if he told me to...I have given all power to Him.. therefore I am His. I am proud to be my MastersCockSlut. yeah baby...

 

[JMohegan]

I do not like to say that I have coerced her to submit to me, but I am comfortable saying that consent is something I continue to seduce from her, and plan on doing for a very long time.

I don't like to say that about myself either. And in fact, I usually don't refer to what I do as coercion. I call it seduction, too.

But if I am being honest, I'll admit that pre-conceived, deliberately planned seduction with the clear (but not fully disclosed) intent to create a situation in which a partner submits to an escalating series of unpleasant things is a form of coercion.

Perhaps not to the point of emotional blackmail, but not squeaky clean either.

 

[serijules]

I basically have limited energy as my own relationships are concerned, and I'd rather put energy into playing with H's sexuality and desires than into deciding if we're as "total" as the Joneses.

It's funny to read this right now while I'm in the midst of being so involved in two conversations on TPE and consent because you will never hear D nor I call our relationship a total power exchange or anything akin to "blank check of consent". If it comes up, "owned" covers it quite well. So I find it amusing (as in I'm laughing at myself) that I'm so interested in both these threads and in defending the concept of TPE/total consent when it isn't even something I normally think or talk about.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't think anyone ever denied that. I was merely trying to provoke thought on the question of consent and coercion, similar to what is being done here. I suppose I used too extreme of an example.

Yes, it was extreme.

It was also early August, and I joined in mid-July.

I would read the very same comments of yours differently if you had started that thread today.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

This comment is exactly why this argument seems redundant to me.

Illegal actions like murdering someone, abusing a child, whatever....are not a part of BDSM. We are discussing a blank check of consent WITHIN A BDSM RELATIONSHIP between two people. Thereafor, it makes no sense to me to argue semantics on the absolute definition of a word when it has already been stated that we are talking about the blank check of consent within a BDSM relationship. That means between people that have consented to be in the relationship. That does not include innocent children or people on the outside so the so called "blank check of consent" does not extend to those people or to involving those people into the little checkbook here.

That is the reason I clarified my post serijules so that I would NOT be jumped like this. Go back and re-read what you quoted. I said that illegal actions are NOT a part of BDSM and never will be in my book and therefore I did not want my comment to be mistaken to mean that I was including such activities.

 

[serijules]

That is the reason I clarified my post serijules so that I would NOT be jumped like this. Go back and re-read what you quoted. I said that illegal actions are NOT a part of BDSM and never will be in my book and therefore I did not want my comment to be mistaken to mean that I was including such activities.

Er, dixi, I was agreeing with what I quoted, not arguing. It was a compliment, not a "jump".

When I said "this argument", I meant in general within the thread, which is why I removed your name from the quote, as I wasn't directing the rest of my comment at YOU, just agreeing that what you said was exactly why the argument in general was redundant....because those things are not a part of BDSM so it seems pointless to apply them to a conversation specifically about BDSM.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

Er, dixi, I was agreeing with what I quoted, not arguing. It was a compliment, not a "jump".

When I said "this argument", I meant in general within the thread, which is why I removed your name from the quote, as I wasn't directing the rest of my comment at YOU, just agreeing that what you said was exactly why the argument in general was redundant....because those things are not a part of BDSM so it seems pointless to apply them to a conversation specifically about BDSM.

I misunderstood then. Apologies.

 

[serijules]

Apologies.

Ditto, I wasn't very clear, I fussed over how to quote that for awhile but I guess I didn't fuss enough lol.

For what it's worth, I'm not a jump type. Even my disagreeing with Geoff in this thread is meant in a light-hearted albeit argumentive manner.

 

[JMohegan]

This is a good thread, it brings up a lot of issues that are really fundamental to the concept of D/s.

I want to add a few comments that may seem like non-sequiturs, but I can relate them in my mind so perhaps you will be able to as well.

I have always found it curious how often D/s relationships appear to put the cart before the horse. To me, all you really need for a D/s relationship is a dom and a sub.

My girlfriend doesn't submit to me because she is my sub, she is my sub because she submits to me.

Why does she submit to me?

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will answer as honestly as I can. I believe she submits to me because she finds me irresistible. By our very chemistry, she finds it difficult to say no to me. This is a power I have over her somewhat inherently.

I dislike the concept of "giving" the power, because I think that's somewhat of an obfuscation of the truth. The power is mine for the taking. If I use that power well, I have more. You could say that she has given me more, but I have just as much made the right moves to take it.

My girlfriend submits to me in ways I'm sure she would've found completely unimaginable when we first met. It has taken a lot to get her to where she is now.

I do not like to say that I have coerced her to submit to me, but I am comfortable saying that consent is something I continue to seduce from her, and plan on doing for a very long time.

Aside from the semantics issue relating to the word coerce, this all made sense to me.

I have a question for you, Marquis. Do you generally fish in the alleged vanilla pond, or select experienced or at least knowledgeable D/s or BDSM partners as your mates?

I ask because I think the former gives a different perspective from the typical Dom meets sub scenario, which may explain the alternate cart/horse points of view.

 

[Marquis]

Aside from the semantics issue relating to the word coerce, this all made sense to me.

I have a question for you, Marquis. Do you generally fish in the alleged vanilla pond, or select experienced or at least knowledgeable D/s or BDSM partners as your mates?

I ask because I think the former gives a different perspective from the typical Dom meets sub scenario, which may explain the alternate cart/horse points of view.

I've done both.

It has always seemed to me that the less versed a girl is with bdsm, the more likely she is to want things to develop naturally, which is much to my style. The more experienced a submissive is, the more likely she seems to be to have a laundry list of demands for me to follow in order to be the ever mysterious "real Dom".

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I have no limits. I have given all consent to my Owner. If she wanted to fuck me in the middle of a serious fight, I would be upset and angry and whatnot, but I would submit to it without protest (although I can't guarentee without attitude, heh). If she wants to shave my head, pierce me, cut me, tie me up and lock me in a room for a day alone....I wouldn't like all of it, but I would accept it without crying abuse.

I consented knowing that HER limits are in the same realm as mine.

Being a D in this kind of scenario is all about cost-benefit analysis. There are certain arguments that can be halted with a dick to the mouth and the benefit is immense. There are other arguments which can't be halted that way without deeply affecting the relationship and the dynamic, for better OR for worse, but which will invoke measures of attention and "damage control" which may not be worth the display of power position in the first place.

Sounds like the realm of the sane world to me.

I in no way believe that anything illegal belongs under the umbrella of BDSM and will never feel that way.

Ah, but darlin' ... different countries, different laws.

Alright, pop quiz.

Is the demand for blowjobs elastic or inelastic?

Inelastic, no matter from whence presented.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

Ah, but darlin' ... different countries, different laws.

Ah, yes, but laws are still laws sweety, no matter the continent.

 

[serijules]

I've done both.

It has always seemed to me that the less versed a girl is with bdsm, the more likely she is to want things to develop naturally, which is much to my style. The more experienced a submissive is, the more likely she seems to be to have a laundry list of demands for me to follow in order to be the ever mysterious "real Dom".

Reminds me of a conversation Ma'am and I had last night.

I have little experience pleasuring men. D likes to have me suck her "cock" after it's been inside me. She commented on my eagerness during a recent scene overtaking my skill. I asked her if that was a bad thing. She said no, not for right now, and perhaps someday she would teach me more on the skill side as well.

I was trying to not feel humiliated by my lack of skill, and expressed something to this extent. She noted that if I had been a skilled cock sucker, she may not have been as attracted to me as she was. She prefers to groom and teach to her own specifications and that a certain amount of naivete appealed.

I had never looked at it like that before and suddenly didn't feel so self conscious about my lack of skills in various areas.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Ah, yes, but laws are still laws sweety, no matter the continent.

Shall we dance around prostitution and the Netherlands, Germany, etc?

i can come up with a few pretty wicked scenarios allowed in one country, but landing collective butts in jail in others.

 

[Marquis]

Reminds me of a conversation Ma'am and I had last night.

I have little experience pleasuring men. D likes to have me suck her "cock" after it's been inside me. She commented on my eagerness during a recent scene overtaking my skill. I asked her if that was a bad thing. She said no, not for right now, and perhaps someday she would teach me more on the skill side as well.

I was trying to not feel humiliated by my lack of skill, and expressed something to this extent. She noted that if I had been a skilled cock sucker, she may not have been as attracted to me as she was. She prefers to groom and teach to her own specifications and that a certain amount of naivete appealed.

I had never looked at it like that before and suddenly didn't feel so self conscious about my lack of skills in various areas.

That's not the kind of experience I'm talking about.

 

[serijules]

That's not the kind of experience I'm talking about.

I know, just stated that your post reminded me of the conversation and got me thinking about the appeal of naivete no matter what the topic.

Sigh..never mind.