How Do We Deal
Peter Galati
do some play torture deal with this.
Peter
Philip the Foole
How do you handle it if you read a description of non-consensual torture
and find yourself getting turned on? "Do I have the potential to do
that?" Yeah, probably. "How do I deal with knowing that fact about
myself?"
Lots of us have non-consensual fantasies. I certainly do. If I see a
sexually attractive person, part of my mind instantly starts devising
schemes to get them tied up and vulnerable.
Is rape the same as consensual sex? They look similar from a distance.
The key difference is consent.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
"We are outraged when we hear of people torturing Americans in
other countries, and yet we look the other way when it involves
consenting adults."
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Kathy Valente, acting state director
of the Concerned Women for America, quoted in the Chicago Tribune
Stephen Harris
> If Pfc. Lynch was tortured during her time as a POW how do we as people who
> do some play torture deal with this.
By understanding "informed consent".
--
rgds "Pleasure, little treasure"
Stephen,
An Englishman in New York, and loving slave to his Mistress, Tori.
BDSM thoughts, writings, poems and stuff: http://bdsm.spuddy.org/
LususNaturae
If she was tortured, she joins the hundreds of thousands of
people tortured each day throughout the world. We deal with it
the same way.
_I_ deal with it by being unshakably certain that non-consensual
torture is _categorically_ different from the evil things I'd
like to do to a willing victim.
--
Lusus Naturae
perrin
Given that the victim is willing are the evil things evil?
perrin.
--
perrin's naff little stories
http://bestpornhost.com/perrin
Switchmaybe(BG)
war, you consent to fight and die, you don't consent to torture, though,
some would say, well it might happen in a fight.
If you join the forces, you are hardly going to be surprised if you are put
in danger though.
Brian
--
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Brian - Pain is fine, but drop me and I shatter.
Only my eyes are blind.
It's OK, Ive got the balls, so let's play!
switc...@blueyonder.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________________
"Peter Galati" <gal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b6k0n1$cig$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/03
Akasha
Good way of putting it, Philip. Right now I have a host of non
consensual fantasies that frequently are in my head, but they are
almost campy, and somewhere in my subconcious, even if they are about
a real live person, it's almost as if I imagine it was all one big
long consensual roleplay, even if it looks non consensual. Or in the
back of my mind, I think "wouldn't this make a good tv show" (usually,
they are so silly, they'd actually be a *bad* tv show).
Back before I stopped watching CNN because it was stressing me out, I
caught a short segment where they showed how some people in the
military were trained to deal with being a POW -- they showed some
clips of the training, the wrists being bound, heads being covered,
and in the voice over pointed out that it was very realistic but of
course no real torture was involved. Feeling a bit guilty, I thought
it was kind of hot -- because I knew these guys were going along with
this as part of their training and consenting to it but still were
running through a scenario of bondage and uncertainty. Now, when I
would see clips of real POWs, I would literally get sick to my
stomach. Big difference. So I stopped watching CNN.
Even *make believe* scenes of realistic torture or execution make me
very uneasy, whereas "campy" make believe (like sci fi or fantasy)
scenes of torture and execution get me quite giddy. An example --
when I was just 14 or so, the bondage and execution in the campy,
horrible movie "Flash Gordon" just made me all gooey with excitement.
Just the other night, I think my husband had "monter's ball" on tv,
and there was a realistic execution in it, and I had to purposely just
NOT pay attention. Same thing with war movies, I can't watch them.
Akasha
Janet Hardy
Peter Galati wrote:
> If Pfc. Lynch was tortured during her time as a POW how do we as people who
> do some play torture deal with this.
The same way that those of us who do rape scenes deal with the realities
of rape, or those of us who do edgy ageplay deal with the realities of
child molestation: we acknowledge that, as a friend of Dossie's says,
"our fantasies have dirty roots," make absolutely sure that we're not in
any way making the world a safer place for real nonconsent or harm, and
then go on and enjoy ourselves.
Might also be worth acknowledging that the only thing that's changed is
that a female soldier of the US is the one who may have been tortured
this time. Male soldiers, and female civilians, have been tortured for
millennia, and we've somehow managed to bear up and keep on being good
little perverts with that knowledge.
Janet
--
... But I Know What You Want - the first collection of stories by the
"mystery writer" James Williams. "Williams explores his characters, men
and women, gay and bi and het, with an easy intimacy, as if he had at
some time inhabited each of their bodies" - Dossie Easton. Now available
at http://www.greenerypress.com .
AlienZen
news:_uhja.277$gU6....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> LususNaturae wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:11:25 -0500, "Peter Galati"
> > <gal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If Pfc. Lynch was tortured during her time as a POW how do we as people who
> >>do some play torture deal with this.
> >
> >
> > If she was tortured, she joins the hundreds of thousands of
> > people tortured each day throughout the world. We deal with it
> > the same way.
> >
> > _I_ deal with it by being unshakably certain that non-consensual
> > torture is _categorically_ different from the evil things I'd
> > like to do to a willing victim.
> >
>
> Given that the victim is willing are the evil things evil?
>
If the sheep 'leans into it', is it still kinky?
LususNaturae
<perr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Given that the victim is willing are the evil things evil?
If they're not, I'm going to be _very_ disappointed. (Actually,
I'm not even sure I can pull off an evil grin here.)
--
Lusus Naturae
John Warren
news:b6k0n1$cig$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Other people have spoken well about this, but I can speak from a more
intimate perspective, having been tortured myself in 1971.
The one key is consent and the other is a recognization that we cannot
control our fantasies but we can control our actions.
We gave a paucity in our language. We don't distinguish between good pain
and bad pain or between consensual torture and nonconsensual torture. This
causes confusion in those outside, but not to most of those who deal with
this in their own hearts.
Imagine a society where most reproduction was done by cloning. Sex is of
interest to only a tiny minority and is seen as deviant and painful. Now
imagine how hard it would be to explain the difference between rape and sex
to someone who is made sick by the thought of any kind of sex.
--
www.diversifiedservices.biz
(Books, Videos and Toys for the Scene since 1992)
Joseph Lovell
So, what's to deal with? Stuff like that happens in war. How are you
making the connection between that and play?
Do you also make a connection between driving your car and the Bradleys
that are taking out rolling stock over there?
jenner
<gal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
People who have been raped in the past do rape scenes.
Wrap your mind around that for a while.
atara
<Jo...@diversifiedservices.biz> wrote:
> The one key is consent and the other is a recognization that we cannot
> control our fantasies but we can control our actions.
Before I actually discovered that bdsm was something I could *do*--Whee!--I
always felt embarrassed about my fantasies. Now it's very clear to me that
my fantasies are *much* more extreme than anything I do in play, just as
(we hope) the driving techniques we use in video games are *much* more
dangerous than the ones we use on the road. Fantasy and reality are two
different things, and it's a very good thing to learn the difference. Or
maybe fantasy is an altogether different sort of reality, but it still
needs to stay separate from the reality we live in most of the time.
Bobby's baby girl,
atara
--
Atara Stein
____
\ /
\/
Power Plays: Fan Fiction with a Kinky Edge
http://atarastein.tripod.com/powerplays/
You know the drill: delete the spam from my address when replying by email.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands
explained."--Mark Twain
anneliese
Once I disassociate "rape" from "making love" and classify it with all
the other physical assaults that can be committed upon a person, that's
fairly easy to do. At that point, how is a rape scene different from
being beaten, whipped, or kicked?
Of course, a rape *scene* implies that you are tuning this assault
*into* a sexual act. Hmmm...
anneliese
--
Endorphins are living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
(with apologies to Ben Franklin)
Joseph Lovell
anneliese wrote:
> Once I disassociate "rape" from "making love" and classify it with all
> the other physical assaults that can be committed upon a person, that's
> fairly easy to do. At that point, how is a rape scene different from
> being beaten, whipped, or kicked?
>
> Of course, a rape *scene* implies that you are tuning this assault
> *into* a sexual act. Hmmm...
Which then begs the question, can you rape the willing? Outside of
California I mean. Where does it change from seduction to rape? Where
does it change from an agreed upon scene to rape or battery?
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
"Peter Galati" <gal...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:b6k0n1$cig$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net:
> If Pfc. Lynch was tortured during her time as a POW how do we as
> people who do some play torture deal with this
Why would you have to "deal with" it?
It's time for a moritorium on therapy.
- --
DWARF: Develop Weed-infested Areas Reactionary Front
HITOP: Humans against the Immoral Treatment of Plants
CUSPV: Carnivores United to Save Plants from Vegans
The Meatatarian Homepage:
http://www.i-mockery.com/meatatarian/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPpAbhFDu+agosMXSEQJdTwCgiRE1MvDL1Ozqq5sH5+XVuRCypv0AoMXP
3RoPjfAxYwQ+3/mpTBkXaUrm
=fpNx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Janet Miles
It changes from seduction to rape, or from a scene to battery, if consent
is not freely given (agreement under threat of worse, e.g., a choice
between being raped or being killed, is not freely given consent) or if
consent is clearly withdrawn. It gets more complicated in a consensual
non-consent (CNC) scene, which is why I consider CNC scenes to be edgeplay
for the experienced, and not to be entered into lightly.
If consent is not *clearly* withdrawn (by which I mean the individual who
has ceased to consent has expressed that in an unambiguous manner [1]), it
may still be a bad idea, it may be uncaring, it may even be clueless, but
it's not rape or battery.
[1] Unambiguous signals of withdrawn consent may include, but are not
limited to, statements like "Stop NOW", "red", or "untie me now you bastard
and if you lay another finger on me I'm calling the cops" (tm Janet Hardy).
Ambiguous signals may include, but are not limited to, "um...", "are you
sure this is a good idea?", and thinking loudly but not vocally.
[by the way] I actually think that "begs the question" has a specific
meaning, and that meaning isn't, "requires that the next question be
asked", but I'm vague about that.
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles <janetmiles at chartertn dot net>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Joseph Lovell
Janet Miles wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 03:17:41 GMT, in message <3E8F9C55...@sonic.net>,
> Joseph Lovell wrote:
>
> > anneliese wrote:
> > > Once I disassociate "rape" from "making love" and classify it with all
> > > the other physical assaults that can be committed upon a person, that's
> > > fairly easy to do. At that point, how is a rape scene different from
> > > being beaten, whipped, or kicked?
> > >
> > > Of course, a rape *scene* implies that you are tuning this assault
> > > *into* a sexual act. Hmmm...
> >
> > Which then begs the question, can you rape the willing? Outside of
> > California I mean. Where does it change from seduction to rape? Where
> > does it change from an agreed upon scene to rape or battery?
>
> It changes from seduction to rape, or from a scene to battery, if consent
> is not freely given (agreement under threat of worse, e.g., a choice
> between being raped or being killed, is not freely given consent) or if
> consent is clearly withdrawn. It gets more complicated in a consensual
> non-consent (CNC) scene, which is why I consider CNC scenes to be edgeplay
> for the experienced, and not to be entered into lightly.
>
In the recent case in California, if I have it right, the young lady
decided after intercourse had begun that she no longer desired it. She
made comments like - I don't like this anymore - and - I really need to
get home. She was not threatened, was not constrained, was not under
duress of any sort, if what I read about the case is accurate. All she
needed to do was get up, get dressed and leave. Throughout the whole
process she seems to have been a non active participant.
> If consent is not *clearly* withdrawn (by which I mean the individual who
> has ceased to consent has expressed that in an unambiguous manner [1]), it
> may still be a bad idea, it may be uncaring, it may even be clueless, but
> it's not rape or battery.
>
In the above case, and I grant that I have not read, nor posted, all the
testimony, would you consider that unambiguous? Yes, the guy involved
was uncaring and clueless about the woman.
> [1] Unambiguous signals of withdrawn consent may include, but are not
> limited to, statements like "Stop NOW", "red", or "untie me now you bastard
> and if you lay another finger on me I'm calling the cops" (tm Janet Hardy).
> Ambiguous signals may include, but are not limited to, "um...", "are you
> sure this is a good idea?", and thinking loudly but not vocally.
>
In a scene of some sort, unless one of the above is the agreed upon safe
word, or unless there were clear signs of true physical or mental
distress, I might or might not stop. Part of the game just may be to
push the limits and elicit the "untie me now you bastard and if you lay
another finger on me I'm calling the cops" (tm Janet Hardy)" response.
Although anyone that was aware enough to both remember and say the
"paren trademark Janet Hardy close paren" part shouldn't be in all that
much distress.
But this still leave it somewhat unclear, at what point would rape scene
change from "play rape" to "felony rape" or a flogging, beating, some
sort of physical attack turn to being felonious assault and battery?
The typical "Oh, Stop! Please stop" vocalizations are (usually)
meaningless in those situations, as are most of the "standard" distress
signals and vocalizations.
anneliese
>[by the way] I actually think that "begs the question" has a specific
>meaning, and that meaning isn't, "requires that the next question be
>asked", but I'm vague about that.
>
>JanetM
>
>
You recall correctly. I found the following at
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html
Paul Brians
Department of English,
Washington State University
-Begs the Question-
"An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker
is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to "beg the question."
Here is an example of a question-begging argument: "This painting is
trash because it is obviously worthless." The speaker is simply
asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to
demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use "begs"
with this odd meaning ("to improperly take for granted") in any other
phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something
quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be
asked--raises the question. If you're not comfortable with formal terms
of logic, it's best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing
yourself."
Another day, another lesson in language. :)
anneliese
Joseph Lovell
Thank you! Now I know to stay away from that term.
This post would actually fit well into the several other threads about
language and changing it. Yes, there is a technical definition that is
used in formal logic, but through (mis)use in the vernacular it has
taken on a different meaning to most people. Kind of how "awful" and
"artificial" have changed meaning in the last 200 years or so.
anneliese
Ben Clarke wrote:
>anneliese <anne...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>You recall correctly. I found the following at
>>http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html
>>Paul Brians
>>Department of English,
>>Washington State University
>>
>>-Begs the Question-
>>"An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker
>>is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to "beg the question."
>>Here is an example of a question-begging argument: "This painting is
>>trash because it is obviously worthless." The speaker is simply
>>asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to
>>demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use "begs"
>>with this odd meaning ("to improperly take for granted") in any other
>>phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something
>>quite different
>>
>>
>
>Um ... that's an interesting quote, but contradicts what I've been
>told by an Oxford professor of English. At the risk of sounding
>parochial, I think I'd take my source over yours. :-)
>
I'll see your Oxford professor of English and raise you the Oxford
English Dictionary. <g>
Beg (beg), v.
6. To take for granted without warrant; esp in To beg the question: to
take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof."
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary
(c) Oxford University Press, 1971
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 76-188038
Twenty-Eighth Printing in U.S., December 1989
Volume I, A-O - p. 765
karinne W
"Janet Miles" <janet...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:jdn09v00tk1qajesm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 03:17:41 GMT, in message
<3E8F9C55...@sonic.net>,
> Joseph Lovell wrote:
>
> > anneliese wrote:
> > > Once I disassociate "rape" from "making love" and classify it with all
> > > the other physical assaults that can be committed upon a person,
that's
> > > fairly easy to do. At that point, how is a rape scene different from
> > > being beaten, whipped, or kicked?
> > >
> > > Of course, a rape *scene* implies that you are tuning this assault
> > > *into* a sexual act. Hmmm...
> >
> > Which then begs the question, can you rape the willing? Outside of
> > California I mean. Where does it change from seduction to rape? Where
> > does it change from an agreed upon scene to rape or battery?
>
> It changes from seduction to rape, or from a scene to battery, if consent
> is not freely given (agreement under threat of worse, e.g., a choice
> between being raped or being killed, is not freely given consent) or if
> consent is clearly withdrawn. It gets more complicated in a consensual
> non-consent (CNC) scene, which is why I consider CNC scenes to be edgeplay
> for the experienced, and not to be entered into lightly.
This is such a grey area, I think it is difficult to even discuss with much
clarity. Those of us who use consensual non-consent in our lives do an awful
lot of communicating about exactly what that means, but I do not believe
that there is an across the board def for CNC. For us, perhaps, that may
mean that anytime, anywhere, M can 'take me down', and that's that,
safewords do not come into play (but then he knows me well enough to gauge
any real distress instantly, and has done so). For another, a different set
of parameters surely apply. This is worlds away from "real" rape. Having
survived that and all kinds of other unpleasantries, I can differentiate
quite clearly. The physical ACT is not all that different, perhaps...but the
intent is a world apart- at least the ongoing, underlying intent.
I am realizing that this is difficult to explain, even to people who
probably 'get it' too- ok, rape is a crime of control and violence with a
sexual component.
CNC violent sex is about control and (sometimes) sadism with a sexual
component. How would you explain the difference to someone who hasn't a clue
about the dynamic of non-consent?
M says (on the lighthearted side) that CNC violent sex is done with the
thought in mind, "If I break her, I can't play with her anymore". (On the
serious side, it's cause he loves me and wants to keep me around, so he
won't permanently damage me). Rape has (obviously) no such component.
*shrug*
thoughts on a sunday morning, after having been gone for a while due to
moving and no isp access for a few weeks. Nice to see you all.
-karinne
Janet Miles
Given that I don't have access to all the testimony and evidence, I will
answer that I don't have enough information to have an informed opinion.
> > [1] Unambiguous signals of withdrawn consent may include, but are not
> > limited to, statements like "Stop NOW", "red", or "untie me now you bastard
> > and if you lay another finger on me I'm calling the cops" (tm Janet Hardy).
> > Ambiguous signals may include, but are not limited to, "um...", "are you
> > sure this is a good idea?", and thinking loudly but not vocally.
> >
> In a scene of some sort, unless one of the above is the agreed upon safe
> word, or unless there were clear signs of true physical or mental
> distress, I might or might not stop. Part of the game just may be to
> push the limits and elicit the "untie me now you bastard and if you lay
> another finger on me I'm calling the cops" (tm Janet Hardy)" response.
> Although anyone that was aware enough to both remember and say the
> "paren trademark Janet Hardy close paren" part shouldn't be in all that
> much distress.
>
> But this still leave it somewhat unclear, at what point would rape scene
> change from "play rape" to "felony rape" or a flogging, beating, some
> sort of physical attack turn to being felonious assault and battery?
> The typical "Oh, Stop! Please stop" vocalizations are (usually)
> meaningless in those situations, as are most of the "standard" distress
> signals and vocalizations.
Well, I did mention "Consensual Non-Consent" scenes, which are more
complicated. And I said "may include", not "these are always". I think I
left myself enough weasel room.
However, to try to clarify some of the ambiguity that I seem to have
created:
I. Assumptions
A. All of the following assumes that there is no external threat and
that any power differential between the parties is agreed-upon. For
example, I'm excluding cases of child abuse even if there's no immediate
physical threat.
B. All assessments of consent assume that it's informed -- nobody is
deliberately withholding or falsifying information. (See also item I.G.)
C. I'm going to do my best to assume gender-neutrality as to who's top
and who's bottom. If I slip, I apologize.
D. Tops get safewords, too, but I'm not going to address that in this
post; it's sufficiently complex already.
E. Midway through my outline, I realized that I'm addressing only SM
scenes, not DS scenes. I don't do DS, and I don't have a gut-level
understanding of how it works and where consent is and isn't. I'm still
going to use the BDSM acronym, though.
F. It was pointed out to me by one of the friends who reviewed this
prior to my posting that there's a grey area which probably isn't assault
but could be negligence, especially as regards the question of equipment
(toy) maintenance.
G. Another grey area exists around failure to provide essential
information; this may be more akin to fraud than to assault, but should be
mentioned.
II. Vanilla sexual activity (not BDSM play)
A. Vanilla sexual activity becomes assault at the moment consent is
unambiguously withdrawn, or at the next possible moment where action can be
taken or ceased. For example, assuming penis-in-vagina intercourse with
the man on top, if he's halfway through a thrust when she says "stop", I'm
not going to consider the remainder of that thrust and subsequent
withdrawal assault -- he may not be able to stop in mid-stroke. Same-same
with woman on top -- if she's halfway down a stroke, she may not be able to
stop immediately.
(Note: I have been advised that "In a male orgasm, there's about a
3 second window before actual ejaculation, when it becomes inevitable, and
a mental desire to stop may be non-operative physically. This doesn't mean
that *withdrawal* is impossible, just that the ejaculation *will* happen."
So I'll modify A. to allow for that inevitability.)
B. I consider that both parties have the responsibility of being as
clear as possible. If there is any question as to what is meant, I think
the party who is uncertain should try to clarify. For example, "I don't
like this anymore" would ideally (IMO) have elicited a pause and the
question, "Do you want to stop, then?".
C. However, lack of follow-up on one part does not excuse the other
party from the obligation to be clear. In the absence of threat, I think
that "I don't like this anymore" would ideally (IMO) have been followed up
with "Please stop".
III. BDSM play other than CNC (consensual non-consent)
A. The activity becomes assault at the moment consent is unambiguously
withdrawn, or at the next possible moment when action can be taken or
ceased. For example, assuming a flogging, if the top is midway through a
downstroke when the bottom says "stop", I'm not necessarily going to
consider it assault if that stroke falls, depending on how far from the
bottom the flogger was, how fast it was moving, and so forth. For another
example, if extensive bondage is involved and the top immediately begins
undoing the bonds, I'm not going to consider the time it takes to remove
everything as assault.
B. Unambiguous withdrawal of consent may include use of an agreed-upon
safeword (e.g., "red") or plain speech ("no").
C. If an agreed-upon safeword is used, there is no excuse for not
stopping immediately (or as soon as possible).
D. If plain speech is used, there are a couple of possible cases.
1. If the parties don't know each other well enough to be certain
that "no" is *not* a safeword, it is the top's responsibility to check in
and ask, "do you want to stop?". If the bottom says yes, zie wants to
stop, then there is no excuse for not stopping. If the bottom says no, zie
doesn't want to stop, then it is okay to continue with due care.
2. If the parties *do* know each other well enough to be certain that
"no" is not a safeword, then it is okay to continue with due care.
E. I think that both parties have the responsibility to be as clear as
possible. However, given that one possible object in BDSM is to induce an
altered state in the bottom, the top has greater responsibility for
clarifying ambiguity. More elegantly, and I'm quoting the same friend who
pointed out the question of negligence, "the party with the greater ability
to *respond* to an emergency has more responsibility to do so correctly."
IV. BDSM play including CNC (consensual non-consent)
A. Personally, I think CNC is heavy and edgeplay and not for beginners.
B. Personally, I think CNC is heavy and edgeplay and not for people who
don't know each other *really* well.
C. Personally, I think CNC is heavy and edgeplay and should be
*thoroughly* negotiated in advance as to means and outcome.
D. I recognize that not everyone agrees with me on these points,
especially item C.
E. However, given my preferred constraints (experienced players who know
each other well and negotiate the hell out of the scene before starting),
it becomes assault at the point where the top departs from the negotiated
means or exceeds the negotiated outcomes.
F. Personally, I think that even in CNC scenes, claims of an emergency
state (e.g., "I'm going to throw up" or "I can't feel anything in my left
leg") should be considered the equivalent of safewords *unless* they have
been specifically negotiated as information-only. I think it is incumbent
upon the bottom not to lie or mislead the top about zir condition, and not
to claim an emergency state if one does not exist.
G. Especially in CNC scenes, the top has great responsibility to
observe, monitor, and interpret the bottom's reactions. Again, "the party
with the greater ability to *respond* to an emergency has more
responsibility to do so correctly."
Joseph Lovell
Everyone should read it several times, and maybe save a copy.
<g> Weasel room is always a good thing.
> However, to try to clarify some of the ambiguity that I seem to have
> created:
>
> I. Assumptions
> A. All of the following assumes that there is no external threat and
> that any power differential between the parties is agreed-upon. For
> example, I'm excluding cases of child abuse even if there's no immediate
> physical threat.
>
Good starting point.
> B. All assessments of consent assume that it's informed -- nobody is
> deliberately withholding or falsifying information. (See also item I.G.)
>
> C. I'm going to do my best to assume gender-neutrality as to who's top
> and who's bottom. If I slip, I apologize.
>
> D. Tops get safewords, too, but I'm not going to address that in this
> post; it's sufficiently complex already.
>
> E. Midway through my outline, I realized that I'm addressing only SM
> scenes, not DS scenes. I don't do DS, and I don't have a gut-level
> understanding of how it works and where consent is and isn't. I'm still
> going to use the BDSM acronym, though.
>
> F. It was pointed out to me by one of the friends who reviewed this
> prior to my posting that there's a grey area which probably isn't assault
> but could be negligence, especially as regards the question of equipment
> (toy) maintenance.
>
> G. Another grey area exists around failure to provide essential
> information; this may be more akin to fraud than to assault, but should be
> mentioned.
>
Or just a brain fart, or an assumption by one party that "tvortnaster"
(made up word) implies one set of actions and tools while to the other
party it implies something else entirely.
> II. Vanilla sexual activity (not BDSM play)
> A. Vanilla sexual activity becomes assault at the moment consent is
> unambiguously withdrawn, or at the next possible moment where action can be
> taken or ceased. For example, assuming penis-in-vagina intercourse with
> the man on top, if he's halfway through a thrust when she says "stop", I'm
> not going to consider the remainder of that thrust and subsequent
> withdrawal assault -- he may not be able to stop in mid-stroke. Same-same
> with woman on top -- if she's halfway down a stroke, she may not be able to
> stop immediately.
>
> (Note: I have been advised that "In a male orgasm, there's about a
> 3 second window before actual ejaculation, when it becomes inevitable, and
> a mental desire to stop may be non-operative physically. This doesn't mean
> that *withdrawal* is impossible, just that the ejaculation *will* happen."
> So I'll modify A. to allow for that inevitability.)
>
> B. I consider that both parties have the responsibility of being as
> clear as possible. If there is any question as to what is meant, I think
> the party who is uncertain should try to clarify. For example, "I don't
> like this anymore" would ideally (IMO) have elicited a pause and the
> question, "Do you want to stop, then?".
>
> C. However, lack of follow-up on one part does not excuse the other
> party from the obligation to be clear. In the absence of threat, I think
> that "I don't like this anymore" would ideally (IMO) have been followed up
> with "Please stop".
>
An emphatic "Stop NOW!" would be appropriate.
Again, a very well thought out and presented post. It really points out
the need for clear communication by both parties before things get
rolling. And it seems that in BDSM (and variets thereof) the use of
safe words actually makes consent and the withdrawal thereof more easily
recognized than in vanilla (how did we start using that wonderful word
to mean "boring and plain"?) situations.
Joseph
The Demon Prince
<gal...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Invade?
The Demon Prince
aka William Dukinfield of Bristol
aka Brimstone Billy, Captain of the "Cardiff Rose"
TDM, OYKB Knight, Defender of the OTW
FG, *C*AF, XGMC
Lord Yuk Fu of Sarcastica - Master of the Motorcade
Priest to the AFR Goddess of Innocence and Wenches-To-Be
Captain of the Meadery - Chief Taster of the Brew
Serpentus Proteus, Advocate of Arachne and
Champion of the Precept that Real Men Do Wear Lace
Probationary Member - Guild of St. Wilde
Dave #1, Society of Daves
95 ACE - "Baby"
97 FLSTS - "Heartbreaker"
The Demon Prince
<Xalie...@XyahooX.com> wrote:
>If the sheep 'leans into it', is it still kinky?
Not if it's a ewe, not a ram. I'm kinky, but I ain't *queer* . . .
Janet Miles
aspect of consent and withdrawal of consent that I missed.
It was pointed out to me elsewhere that some people *cannot* unambiguously
revoke consent. They may be able to hint at a problem, but *cannot* bring
themselves to make that demand.
My correspondent pointed out that this can happen with some people who have
been badly abused or abused over a long period of time: they may find it
difficult to set appropriate boundaries and impossible to defend those
boundaries if they are breached.
I should also have remembered that this can happen with some people who
enter a very deep subspace, such that they completely give up their will
for the duration of the scene.
In an ideal world, I would hope that anyone anyone who falls into these
categories would know about it in advance, and would be able to negotiate
that zir partner would accept the additional responsibility for monitoring
and appropriately reacting to zir responses. Unfortunately, the world is
not ideal.
JanetM, who regrets having missed those two points, because they're damned
important
Asmodeus
Hash: SHA1
The Demon Prince <demon...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:6gp19v4svo5seho74...@4ax.com:
> I'm kinky, but I ain't *queer*
Not everybody can be perfect.
- --
"It's interesting that people who shudder at the idea of blood
running down their chin seldom object to the very similar
sensation of sun-warmed fruit juice running down their chin."
-- Amanda Walker
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPqAEHFDu+agosMXSEQKBGQCdGlbz2r+gfRL2btd4MelmYuqjd10An18p
9voUysuo8zpykzWEB5aVYh/Q
=APd6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----