Death By Firing Squad

[DVS]

Why are we arguing about consent? Consent allows us to do what we enjoy. Consent allows the PYL to abuse the body and mind of a pyl because without consent it's abuse. Consent allows the sadist to inflict pain on the masochist because without consent it's an illegal sadistic act on a victim. There is no consent in a sadistic act. Those of us who enjoy sadism for it's kinky satisfactions put consent in there, to satisfy the law.

Consent was added to these acts by people who enjoy doing them for fun. The human mind is a strange bird. We enjoy strange things. But, because laws have kept up with and even surpassed the human mind's ability to be kinky, we have to have consent to do what we all enjoy.

BDSM is the consensual acting out of our sexual urges. If not for consent, there would be quite a few of us in jail. But, because of consent, we're just labeled perverts.

 

[satindesire]

Someone brilliantly decided to argue that consent had NOTHING to do with BDSM.

So, we're quite readily proving that wrong. I think by now, we've all decided that consent is everything in BDSM even if it's not part of the BDSM acronym.

 

[Netzach]

If you want the acronym, take it, along with all the other cultural labels.

Personally I see a difference between restraint, control, and sadism that is sexualized, and restraint, control, and sadism that is not. This is the difference between tying someone to the bed as a prelude to fucking, and tying someone to the bed so they'll be out of the way while you rob the house.

There is such a thing as nonconsensual but sexualized sadism. Regrettably, not just in the fantasy world. The way I see it, consent is part of the line that divides ethical sexualized sadism from the despicable kind. (The other part of that line being effect on the subject.) But I do not consider consent itself to be an intrinsic part of the urge.

Yeah, I guess that doesn't work for me. I work with urges for inspiration, but I work with tangible goodies in front of me when it's time to actually have an orgasm involving other people. "On this planet" as it were rather than planet insidemyhead.

I know there are people, probably a lot of them, DeSade himself may well have been one - whose entire sexualities were satisfied by the filthy little worlds of their own mainly unsatisfied urges. On paper and in theory.

I could sit in my room and wallow in my sociopathic urges the rest of my life - and even be well paid for it.

That's not BDSM, to me. It's interesting as fuck, and it's hot but it's not BDSM.

That requires a participant, one, and the significant social parameters in my way of kidnapping businessmen using roofies and sodomizing them will pretty much nix the likelihood of that working out for me. And if it were to work out for me, I would call it "assault" not "BDSM."

So dwelling on that is pretty much masturbatory. And thus, for me, mainly irrelevant. Then the "workable or not" question begins to shape urges, to the point where someone begging me to smack her in the face is SO MUCH better than someone begging me not to. And outstrips the kidnapped yuppie most days, too.

For me, consent is definitely woven into the desire - consent and complicity of the bottom in their own degradation, their own perversion, their own humiliation. That's like a x10 power-up for me, erotically.

 

[JMohegan]

Why are we arguing about consent? Consent allows us to do what we enjoy. Consent allows the PYL to abuse the body and mind of a pyl because without consent it's abuse. Consent allows the sadist to inflict pain on the masochist because without consent it's an illegal sadistic act on a victim. There is no consent in a sadistic act. Those of us who enjoy sadism for it's kinky satisfactions put consent in there, to satisfy the law.

Consent was added to these acts by people who enjoy doing them for fun. The human mind is a strange bird. We enjoy strange things. But, because laws have kept up with and even surpassed the human mind's ability to be kinky, we have to have consent to do what we all enjoy.

BDSM is the consensual acting out of our sexual urges. If not for consent, there would be quite a few of us in jail. But, because of consent, we're just labeled perverts.

Even with consent, it's still an illegal sadistic act on a victim in many cases.

I think the fact that consent isn't enough to make it legal is a good thing is some cases, and a bad thing in others. It depends on the impact of the act (or series of acts) on the victim.

 

[DVS]

Even with consent, it's still an illegal sadistic act on a victim in many cases.

I think the fact that consent isn't enough to make it legal is a good thing is some cases, and a bad thing in others. It depends on the impact of the act (or series of acts) on the victim.

If you're talking about that one case in another country (sorry, can't remember where) where the victim was 16 but of legal age for consent, that's something I don't understand.

First, why is someone age 16 considered legal for anything? That's their society deciding that. But, if they want to consider someone that young to be able to make such a decision, then why would they dispute it? It's like someone is legal to decide for themselves...but wait...if we want to change our mind later, we have that option. That's not right, in my opinion.

Give someone legal rights or not, but don't go all wishy-washy and second guess the law you made afterward and decide to convict someone, even after they followed your law.

If a society can't decide when someone is mentally and physically able to make legal decisions in their lives, I've got a car loan and a second mortgage I want to say I wasn't legally able to sign for.

 

[BiBunny]

In most places, you can't consent to assault. That's what a lot of BDSM play falls under. So, yes, if they want to arrest and convict your ass badly enough, "But he/she wanted it!" wouldn't get you off, even if your "victim" spoke up in your defense.

 

[Etoile]

"What does consent have to do with BDSM" is like "What does food have to do with eating?"

One cannot exist without the other. Period.

Unless you are crazy.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Unless you are crazy.

Why hasn't she been mocked on South Park yet?

So. Much. Material.

 

[DVS]

In most places, you can't consent to assault. That's what a lot of BDSM play falls under. So, yes, if they want to arrest and convict your ass badly enough, "But he/she wanted it!" wouldn't get you off, even if your "victim" spoke up in your defense.

Well, I guess that's what's meant when they say we're living on the edge. The vanilla world will always assume we're just perverts and perverts don't have the sense to know right from wrong. We can't control our own unseemly urges. I think it's mostly just sexual fodder for the court system. They drag the convicted into court, force them to spew out the whole story in graphic detail, then go home at night and masturbate over the transcripts. That's vanilla kink, baby!

Well, maybe I've digressed a little...

 

[JMohegan]

If you're talking about that one case in another country (sorry, can't remember where) where the victim was 16 but of legal age for consent, that's something I don't understand.

First, why is someone age 16 considered legal for anything? That's their society deciding that. But, if they want to consider someone that young to be able to make such a decision, then why would they dispute it? It's like someone is legal to decide for themselves...but wait...if we want to change our mind later, we have that option. That's not right, in my opinion.

Give someone legal rights or not, but don't go all wishy-washy and second guess the law you made afterward and decide to convict someone, even after they followed your law.

If a society can't decide when someone is mentally and physically able to make legal decisions in their lives, I've got a car loan and a second mortgage I want to say I wasn't legally able to sign for.

No, I wasn't talking about one case. See BiBunny's post; I was talking about consent in general.

People get off on all kinds of shit; there's a whole spectrum here. If a Mistress wants to cut her boy's nuts off, and he says yes, do you think that should be legal?

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, I guess that doesn't work for me. I work with urges for inspiration, but I work with tangible goodies in front of me when it's time to actually have an orgasm involving other people. "On this planet" as it were rather than planet insidemyhead.

I know there are people, probably a lot of them, DeSade himself may well have been one - whose entire sexualities were satisfied by the filthy little worlds of their own mainly unsatisfied urges. On paper and in theory.

I could sit in my room and wallow in my sociopathic urges the rest of my life - and even be well paid for it.

That's not BDSM, to me. It's interesting as fuck, and it's hot but it's not BDSM.

That requires a participant, one, and the significant social parameters in my way of kidnapping businessmen using roofies and sodomizing them will pretty much nix the likelihood of that working out for me. And if it were to work out for me, I would call it "assault" not "BDSM."

So dwelling on that is pretty much masturbatory. And thus, for me, mainly irrelevant. Then the "workable or not" question begins to shape urges, to the point where someone begging me to smack her in the face is SO MUCH better than someone begging me not to. And outstrips the kidnapped yuppie most days, too.

For me, consent is definitely woven into the desire - consent and complicity of the bottom in their own degradation, their own perversion, their own humiliation. That's like a x10 power-up for me, erotically.

People with unsatisfied urges don't interest me at all.

If the topic is people who really do grab strangers off the street to be raped and tortured in the basement, the most interesting question to me is how their superegos came to be so malformed. Was it genetic, a major screwup in the socialization process, or some combination of both?

There are people in actual relationships who cross over the line. For example, unless you've changed your mind about this, I know from prior discussions that you do believe there's such a thing as abuse in the BDSM world. Then I'd say that the most interesting questions become the circumstances involved. Did the Top deliberately violate the terms of the dynamic, or was the scope of consent misunderstood? Was consent coerced? Material harm foreseen or even foreseeable? And so on.

 

[DVS]

No, I wasn't talking about one case. See BiBunny's post; I was talking about consent in general.

People get off on all kinds of shit; there's a whole spectrum here. If a Mistress wants to cut her boy's nuts off, and he says yes, do you think that should be legal?

No, I'd say that's pretty sick. But what if the boy felt he was a woman inside and testicles were no longer necessary. Maybe he wanted to sing higher notes in the boy's church choir, and testosterone was hindering it.

You make it seem like it was the Mistress' idea and the boy just agreed to it, willingly, without thought. Maybe it's a flippant answer to your question, but where do we define the extreme cases to begin? Society as a whole has to grow with the changes of it's people. Consent has to mean something. I know what it means when I use the word.

 

[JMohegan]

No, I'd say that's pretty sick. But what if the boy felt he was a woman inside and testicles were no longer necessary. Maybe he wanted to sing higher notes in the boy's church choir, and testosterone was hindering it.

You make it seem like it was the Mistress' idea and the boy just agreed to it, willingly, without thought. Maybe it's a flippant answer to your question, but where do we define the extreme cases to begin? Society as a whole has to grow with the changes of it's people. Consent has to mean something. I know what it means when I use the word.

Where indeed! THAT is the relevant question.

Of course consent means something. And it should. But the concept starts getting fuzzy when we perceive the behavior to be materially harmful, because that's when we start to wonder: Wouldn't one have to be "sick" to consent to something like that? Emotionally disturbed, mentally compromised, or possibly coerced?

 

[WriterDom]

Where indeed! THAT is the relevant question.

Of course consent means something. And it should. But the concept starts getting fuzzy when we perceive the behavior to be materially harmful, because that's when we start to wonder: Wouldn't one have to be "sick" to consent to something like that? Emotionally disturbed, mentally compromised, or possibly coerced?

Mentally sick is 10 to 20% of the US population. Depending on how you define it.

 

[DVS]

Where indeed! THAT is the relevant question.

Of course consent means something. And it should. But the concept starts getting fuzzy when we perceive the behavior to be materially harmful, because that's when we start to wonder: Wouldn't one have to be "sick" to consent to something like that? Emotionally disturbed, mentally compromised, or possibly coerced?

I would imagine that most of the people who post here wouldn't consider their kinks to be sick nor would they think of themselves as emotionally disturbed or mentally compromised. I'd rather think they felt that way before they understood their sexual selves and BDSM. And I seriously doubt that any of us would try to coerce anyone into something they don't want to do. That's not very trustworthy nor consensual.

Granted, there is a small percentage that might fit into the area you speak of, but when saying someone is sick, many of our psychiatrists are total loons when it comes to sexual deviations. Are they the ones that will decide who's sick and who isn't? Again I say we need a clarification on consensual. Or is that small percentage of sick individuals going to be what defines us?

 

[Primalex]

I would imagine that most of the people who post here wouldn't consider their kinks to be sick nor would they think of themselves as emotionally disturbed or mentally compromised.

Unfortunately, a lot of mentally compromised people don't believe they are sick, too.

Granted, there is a small percentage that might fit into the area you speak of, but when saying someone is sick, many of our psychiatrists are total loons when it comes to sexual deviations. Are they the ones that will decide who's sick and who isn't? Again I say we need a clarification on consensual. Or is that small percentage of sick individuals going to be what defines us?

I recently read a very interesting book from a very experienced psychiatrist. There were also little stories about his point of view when he started - where he believed that it's a must to cure the abnormal people.

One example was a woman who did hear a voice that didn't exist of course. He cured this issue with light medication. The woman became depressed, because the voice was actually the one of a former female school teacher, telling her very helpful and motivating things. He mentioned that this was an example that taught him that it's wrong to define "healthy" as "normal". If the voice is doing good things for the patient, why should its presence be defined as "sick"? Just because other humans don't hear it? He discontinued the medication then.

 

[Primalex]

"What does consent have to do with BDSM" is like "What does food have to do with eating?"

One cannot exist without the other. Period.

Uhm. Food does exist without people eating it.

At least in my world.

 

[Primalex]

Consent has everything to do with legal actions. You fuck without consent, that's rape. You go to jail. Consent has EVERYTHING to do with actions that don't have legal consequences.

Thank you for proving my point.

Consent is a requirement of the government to not face legal consequences. It has NOTHING to do with BDSM per se. Or do you want to tell me the government defines BDSM?

Now imagine, hitting someone with a whip even with consent will become illegal (silly? there are worse laws in effect right now!). Will you say then that hitting someone with a whip is no part of BDSM?

 

[JMohegan]

I would imagine that most of the people who post here wouldn't consider their kinks to be sick nor would they think of themselves as emotionally disturbed or mentally compromised. I'd rather think they felt that way before they understood their sexual selves and BDSM. And I seriously doubt that any of us would try to coerce anyone into something they don't want to do. That's not very trustworthy nor consensual.

Granted, there is a small percentage that might fit into the area you speak of, but when saying someone is sick, many of our psychiatrists are total loons when it comes to sexual deviations. Are they the ones that will decide who's sick and who isn't? Again I say we need a clarification on consensual. Or is that small percentage of sick individuals going to be what defines us?

I'd say that "clarification on consensual" has to be made on a case to case basis. And it's not always easy.

I understand why kinky folks want to vehemently declare themselves to be engaging in risk-aware and unequivocally consensual acts, thus distinguishing themselves from those who are clueless, unethical, or nuts. But the truth is, I believe that in many cases, the distinction's a lot more fuzzy. Even among self-professed RACK folks.

I'm not pointing fingers at any individuals here. I'm speaking about those who sexualize restraint, control, and sadism, in general - a group in which those with an allegiance to cultural BDSM are only one part.

.

 

[satindesire]

Unless you are crazy.

Whoa. Dude. O_O

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for proving my point.

Consent is a requirement of the government to not face legal consequences. It has NOTHING to do with BDSM per se. Or do you want to tell me the government defines BDSM?

Now imagine, hitting someone with a whip even with consent will become illegal (silly? there are worse laws in effect right now!). Will you say then that hitting someone with a whip is no part of BDSM?

BDSM practitioners have overwhelmingly defined BDSM-- as a set of practices that take place with consent. The consent itself is what makes it BDSM. Minus consent it's abuse, or rape, or assault, or torture, or murder. It doesn't matter if the perp gets off on those things, they are still-- not-- BDSM.

There are lots of ball games. There are balls that are idle with no one playing with them. You change the rules of basketball, or pick up a football toplay it with and it's not basketball.

 

[DVS]

Whoa. Dude. O_O

I do really need to lose about 10 pounds, but only 10 pounds. I guess I could become a believer for a short time. Now where did she say the air is healthy to breath?

 

[DVS]

I'd say that "clarification on consensual" has to be made on a case to case basis. And it's not always easy.

I understand why kinky folks want to vehemently declare themselves to be engaging in risk-aware and unequivocally consensual acts, thus distinguishing themselves from those who are clueless, unethical, or nuts. But the truth is, I believe that in many cases, the distinction's a lot more fuzzy. Even among self-professed RACK folks.

I'm not pointing fingers at any individuals here. I'm speaking about those who sexualize restraint, control, and sadism, in general - a group in which those with an allegiance to cultural BDSM are only one part.

.

OK, say we do go with a case by case basis on what's consensual and what isn't. Who gets to decide?

 

[neci]

OK, say we do go with a case by case basis on what's consensual and what isn't. Who gets to decide?

the judge

 

[JMohegan]

Thank you for proving my point.

Consent is a requirement of the government to not face legal consequences. It has NOTHING to do with BDSM per se. Or do you want to tell me the government defines BDSM?

Now imagine, hitting someone with a whip even with consent will become illegal (silly? there are worse laws in effect right now!). Will you say then that hitting someone with a whip is no part of BDSM?

I agree with you, that consent has nothing to do with sexual desire or sadistic urges (or behavior) per se. Since I personally think of "BDSM" in a non-culturally specific way, I further agree that consent has nothing per se to do with JM-defined "BDSM" or kink (i.e., sexualized restraint, control, or sadism throughout all of humanity and across all time).

But the point that others are making here is that BDSM - the acronym, in its widely recognized and culturally identifiable form - is itself a social construct. A set of mores and behavioral standards. Devised in the modern era by kinksters, to legitimize certain behaviors and prevent punishment through that other social construct, the law.

Of course, the notion of full risk awareness and unequivocal consent is an ideal or goal - even among BDSM practitioners. Some live up to it, some don't.

BDSM practitioners have overwhelmingly defined BDSM-- as a set of practices that take place with consent. The consent itself is what makes it BDSM. Minus consent it's abuse, or rape, or assault, or torture, or murder. It doesn't matter if the perp gets off on those things, they are still-- not-- BDSM.

There are lots of ball games. There are balls that are idle with no one playing with them. You change the rules of basketball, or pick up a football toplay it with and it's not basketball.

You can break the rules, and still be playing ball. That's why they have refs and umpires. Penalties, lost yardage, etc.

Similarly, violation of consent, and abuse, occur in culturally identifiable BDSM relationships or exchanges. Props to the culture for setting the standard. Shame on the culture for pretending that violation of the standard never occurs.

the judge

Right. Or the jury. This is why we have a court system; to bring order to our civilized world.