RE: Consent 2

RE: Consent 2 (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Consent 2 (11/8/2017 7:48:26 AM)
I was cool with most of this, until this part: quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles I realize that consent forms are necessary if you are running a "business" but with the legal system creeping into private lives of consenting adults, I can't help but wonder when we will need consent forms for even for vanilla sex in our private lives just to keep ahead of the legal system. That's the thing. If you really have two consenting adults, the legal system isn't going to be in your private life, because neither of the consenting adults will be asking for help from the legal system. Your neighbors aren't going to be calling law enforcement over two adults having vanilla sex, though they might under certain BDSM scenarios if they have reason to believe the noise you are making next door is some kind of violent situation or against some kind of noise ordnance. (Actual Good Samaritan types. Not jackasses that have some kind of vendetta against you. Though the latter can happen if somebody is a complete nutjob.)

cloverodella -> RE: Consent 2 (11/8/2017 9:37:47 AM)
quote: I started this thread so people who say stupid things like; "consent is yes means yes and no means no" would see that it "ain't necessarily so". People like you who have said you like "rape" scenes should realize that sometimes no actually means yes and another predetermined word or action is actually no. (I'll respond to your response to me in a bit. But my general answer is still the same, in response to every loophole you came up with.) To call a rape scene a situation of "yes means no" is intellectually dishonest at best, stupid at worst.If you're in a rape scene, the keyword is scene. A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex. You pointed out to me that this is a kink site, which is confusing because if you knew anything about kink, you would already know what safe words are: words established in cases like the aforementioned consensual scene between consenting adults, where that consent hinges on the aggressor abiding by an agreed upon word that substitutes for "no." If that person fails to stop when the safeword is uttered, there is no rape scene, it is just rape. Finally, the sentence, "A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex," is rather redundant, is it not? That's because all the words are different forms of the same root word, consent. Although it would be ungrammatical, they are all interchangeable and ultimately mean the same thing. So I advise against acting like they are different words as a gotcha.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/8/2017 7:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I was cool with most of this, until this part: quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles I realize that consent forms are necessary if you are running a "business" but with the legal system creeping into private lives of consenting adults, I can't help but wonder when we will need consent forms for even for vanilla sex in our private lives just to keep ahead of the legal system. That's the thing. If you really have two consenting adults, the legal system isn't going to be in your private life, because neither of the consenting adults will be asking for help from the legal system. Your neighbors aren't going to be calling law enforcement over two adults having vanilla sex, though they might under certain BDSM scenarios if they have reason to believe the noise you are making next door is some kind of violent situation or against some kind of noise ordnance. (Actual Good Samaritan types. Not jackasses that have some kind of vendetta against you. Though the latter can happen if somebody is a complete nutjob.) I'd like to think that you are correct but it seems I'm a little more cynical about the direction the government is taking than you are. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/8/2017 8:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloverodella quote: I started this thread so people who say stupid things like; "consent is yes means yes and no means no" would see that it "ain't necessarily so". People like you who have said you like "rape" scenes should realize that sometimes no actually means yes and another predetermined word or action is actually no. (I'll respond to your response to me in a bit. But my general answer is still the same, in response to every loophole you came up with.) To call a rape scene a situation of "yes means no" is intellectually dishonest at best, stupid at worst.If you're in a rape scene, the keyword is scene. A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex. You pointed out to me that this is a kink site, which is confusing because if you knew anything about kink, you would already know what safe words are: words established in cases like the aforementioned consensual scene between consenting adults, where that consent hinges on the aggressor abiding by an agreed upon word that substitutes for "no." If that person fails to stop when the safeword is uttered, there is no rape scene, it is just rape. Finally, the sentence, "A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex," is rather redundant, is it not? That's because all the words are different forms of the same root word, consent. Although it would be ungrammatical, they are all interchangeable and ultimately mean the same thing. So I advise against acting like they are different words as a gotcha. You need to actually need to learn how to read or at least learn how to proof read your own posts. First you say; "To call a rape scene a situation of "yes means no" is intellectually dishonest at best, stupid at worst", so are you calling yourself "intellectually dishonest at best, stupid at worst" because if you read my post again you will see that I never said "a rape scene is a situation of "yes means no" but said it was a situation where "no means yes", so your comment only applies to your intellectual dishonesty and stupidity. Also if you had even bothered to read what had been said, you would know that all this; "A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex. You pointed out to me that this is a kink site, which is confusing because if you knew anything about kink, you would already know what safe words are: words established in cases like the aforementioned consensual scene between consenting adults, where that consent hinges on the aggressor abiding by an agreed upon word that substitutes for "no.", already was covered by by my simple statement; "and another predetermined word or action is actually no" but it seems you couldn't be bothered. As for this; "Finally, the sentence, "A scene is between consenting adults who have established consent to have atypical, consensual sex," is rather redundant, is it not? That's because all the words are different forms of the same root word, consent. Although it would be ungrammatical, they are all interchangeable and ultimately mean the same thing. So I advise against acting like they are different words as a gotcha." I already explained this to Greta75 in post 70 but again I guess you couldn't be bothered.

bounty44 -> RE: Consent 2 (11/9/2017 5:10:12 AM)
im reading master and commander; the far side of the world and came across a passage last night that reminded me of this thread. so for what its worth: quote: I have been contemplating on the mating ceremonies of our own kind. sometimes they are almost as brief as the boobies', as when two of a like inclination exchange kind looks and after a short parley retire from view. I am thinking of Herodotus' account of the greek and amazon warriors in the pause after their truce for dinner, when individuals from either army would wander among the bushes, and of some more recent examples that have fallen under my own observation. at other times however the evolutions of the ceremonial dance, with its feigned advances and feigned withdrawals, its ritual offerings and symbolic motions, are protracted beyond measure, last perhaps for years before the right true end is reached; if it is reached at all and not spoilt entirely by the long delay. there are endless variations according to time and country and class, and the finding out of common factors running through them all is a fascinating pursuit.

Shandirra -> RE: Consent 2 (11/9/2017 11:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles May I suggest you read the entire thread before you post these simplistic "answers" like they are the final anwers to any and all questions about consent when it has aready been pointed out that they are not the definitive "answers" you believe them to be. I did read the thread. I simply disagree with the levels of bullshit you think apply. Consent IS a simple issue. You either have it or you don't. Trying to pretend otherwise because you're not getting your rocks off ain't my problem. It's yours.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Consent 2 (11/9/2017 12:41:52 PM)
FR Yup, looks like he really is that stupid after all.

LadyPact -> RE: Consent 2 (11/10/2017 7:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles I'd like to think that you are correct but it seems I'm a little more cynical about the direction the government is taking than you are. ;-) Bullshit. I've done it. Have you? Exactly how many times have the cops showed up at your door? Were they doing random checks while you were having sex with another adult? This consent thing? It's really not that hard. If in doubt... DON'T.

longwayhome -> RE: Consent 2 (11/11/2017 6:24:51 PM)
There have been some good threads about consent but this isn't one of them. I've really tried over the 10 pages on both of these threads to understand fully what the OP was getting at but, after spending a considerable amount of time I'll never get back, it still eludes me. The whole concept of the evolutionary reason for consent is a red herring of monumental proportions - at its simplest consent is the way that women ensure that they only reproduce with people they want to reproduce with. The females of some species seem to successfully choose their mates where in others it seems that they are sometimes overpowered. In some species of spiders it is the female who overpowers and sometimes eats the male after mating. Humans are social animals with sopisticated communication and as such we have our own socialised way of managing this. We also extend the principle of consent to all sorts of social interactions, including sex for pleasure. It's how we try to maintain a cohesive society without unnecessary conflict or damage. There is nothing surprising or profound about that. The thread has touched on consensual non-consent and issues of general versus specific consent, but has mostly stuck to far more straightforward consent issues and the concept of making sure as opposed to supposed spontaneity. It has even strayed into the territory of legal "interference" with people's everyday lives. From that point of view I am struggling to understand the OP's apparent problem with the simple principle of no touching or sexual activity without explicit consent. Even police states don't actively police sexual relations and the authorities only get involved when a potential crime is committed which is down to action taken by citizens. You can do the right thing and make sure at the outset (and then keep checking that what you are doing is okay) or you can be foolhardy and risk dire consequences for you and potentially serious damage and distress for another human being. There's nothing sexy or romantic about being "spontaneous", if there is a risk that what you are really doing is assaulting someone, which is why it pays to make sure. It's a small price to pay for doing the right thing. I really don't see what is so complicated.

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Consent 2 (11/11/2017 7:27:35 PM)
It is complicated for some men. I've noticed reading the posts that men who don't have trouble attracting women also have no trouble understanding consent. But there are men who just aren't able to succeed with women, for a variety of reasons, most of them apparent in their posts. Those latter men want the return to the old days when women didn't have a say yay or nay. Only then can they get laid. So they blather on about all the complications and nuances of consent. Look at those men, and note the men who are absent from the crowd here.

Danemora -> RE: Consent 2 (11/11/2017 8:12:53 PM)
Thank God I wasnt the only one! Ive read these two threads for a couple of weeks now and STILL have no clue what the hell OP was getting at either. Evolution doesnt always keep pace with society. Its just the way it is. Consent can be revoked at ANY time. Its not implied from start to completion. You are not guaranteed a happy ending, OP. If you put your dick into any of my orifices even one millimeter, I can still say No and you will evacuate my oricices the second I tell you to get the fuck out. Period. End of story. Say goodnight, Gracie. It seems like you are just looking for loopholes that are not there, OP.

WhoreMods -> RE: Consent 2 (11/12/2017 4:49:15 AM)
A good point, even if 'tache boy has dropped his initial complaint about evolution being a process of survival of the rape-iest, I wonder why he didn't mention any of the insect and arachnid species whose females are hardwired to consent to sex so long as they can eat the male afterwards? Is that down to mammalian chauvinism, or just the sort of massively selective reading of evidence in order to misrepresent it that's so beloved of creationists?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 4:21:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles May I suggest you read the entire thread before you post these simplistic "answers" like they are the final anwers to any and all questions about consent when it has aready been pointed out that they are not the definitive "answers" you believe them to be. I did read the thread. I simply disagree with the levels of bullshit you think apply. Consent IS a simple issue. You either have it or you don't. Trying to pretend otherwise because you're not getting your rocks off ain't my problem. It's yours. Go back to your make believe world where everything is "simple" and leave alone those that are trying to mske sense of the conplex real world we live in.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 4:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles I'd like to think that you are correct but it seems I'm a little more cynical about the direction the government is taking than you are. ;-) Bullshit. I've done it. Have you? Exactly how many times have the cops showed up at your door? Were they doing random checks while you were having sex with another adult? This consent thing? It's really not that hard. If in doubt... DON'T. Bullshit? How so? Is it Bullshit that I said I would like to think you are correct or that I'm a little more cynical about the direction the government is taking than you are? As for this; "I've done it. Have you? Exactly how many times have the cops showed up at your door? Were they doing random checks while you were having sex with another adult?" I believe I mentioned "the direction the government is taking" not what the government is doing as we speak but then no one else is actually reading what I say so why should you be any different.

Lucylastic -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 5:02:25 AM)
thats two full threads where you havent made yourself clear, you tried to "mansplain" consent...you lost, give it up

Shandirra -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 1:22:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Go back to your make believe world where everything is "simple" and leave alone those that are trying to mske sense of the conplex real world we live in. You mean the real world where you can't utilize proper spelling or grammar? By and by, the real world isn't the issue. Consent is. Stick to the topic. Or are you going to keep using those straw men tactics to bullshit your way around your responsibilities? Consent IS a black and white issue. There are no grey areas whatsoever. There are no conditional, subjective or difficult elements to factor in. When in doubt; don't believe you have consent to do anything to/with another human being. You don't. Idiots like you should come with brands or tattoos emblazoned across your forehead warning everyone of your unfortunately narrow minded inability to accept culpability for your own actions. You cannot justify lack of consent violations. Stop trying.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 7:06:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome There have been some good threads about consent but this isn't one of them. Thanx for your entirely subjective opinion. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome I've really tried over the 10 pages on both of these threads to understand fully what the OP was getting at but, after spending a considerable amount of time I'll never get back, it still eludes me. Quite simply the OP was trying to get a discussion about consent started. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome The whole concept of the evolutionary reason for consent is a red herring of monumental proportions - at its simplest consent is the way that women ensure that they only reproduce with people they want to reproduce with. The females of some species seem to successfully choose their mates where in others it seems that they are sometimes overpowered. In some species of spiders it is the female who overpowers and sometimes eats the male after mating. Humans are social animals with sopisticated communication and as such we have our own socialised way of managing this. We also extend the principle of consent to all sorts of social interactions, including sex for pleasure. It's how we try to maintain a cohesive society without unnecessary conflict or damage. There is nothing surprising or profound about that. If you want to debate evolution go back to the first consent thread and argue with the other idiots there that wanted to debate evolution instead of discussing consent. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome The thread has touched on consensual non-consent and issues of general versus specific consent, but has mostly stuck to far more straightforward consent issues and the concept of making sure as opposed to supposed spontaneity. It has even strayed into the territory of legal "interference" with people's everyday lives. Yep. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome From that point of view I am struggling to understand the OP's apparent problem with the simple principle of no touching or sexual activity without explicit consent. Even police states don't actively police sexual relations and the authorities only get involved when a potential crime is committed which is down to action taken by citizens. Perhaps you don't understand because I don't have the problem you think I have. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome You can do the right thing and make sure at the outset (and then keep checking that what you are doing is okay) or you can be foolhardy and risk dire consequences for you and potentially serious damage and distress for another human being. There's nothing sexy or romantic about being "spontaneous", if there is a risk that what you are really doing is assaulting someone, which is why it pays to make sure. It's a small price to pay for doing the right thing. I really don't see what is so complicated. Well for one thing, your suggestion is so vague that it is hard to tell what the "right thing" is that you are to "make sure of at the outset" and what is being done that you need to keep checking is okay to do. It's this sort of beating around the bush that is one of the things that make "it" so complicated.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 7:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2 It is complicated for some men. I've noticed reading the posts that men who don't have trouble attracting women also have no trouble understanding consent. But there are men who just aren't able to succeed with women, for a variety of reasons, most of them apparent in their posts. Those latter men want the return to the old days when women didn't have a say yay or nay. Only then can they get laid. So they blather on about all the complications and nuances of consent. Look at those men, and note the men who are absent from the crowd here. I don't know of anyone who has said they "want the return to the old days when women didn't have a say yay or nay" in this thread or even implied it and second when was there ever old days when "women didn't have a say yay or nay". Where do you come up with this bull?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 7:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods A good point, even if 'tache boy has dropped his initial complaint about evolution being a process of survival of the rape-iest, I wonder why he didn't mention any of the insect and arachnid species whose females are hardwired to consent to sex so long as they can eat the male afterwards? Is that down to mammalian chauvinism, or just the sort of massively selective reading of evidence in order to misrepresent it that's so beloved of creationists? Oh look, Froggy has returned and he is still trying to drag evolution into this thread with him. Just go back to the thread that you already ruined and continue to muddy it up with your stilted one track mind. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Consent 2 (11/14/2017 8:00:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic thats two full threads where you havent made yourself clear, you tried to "mansplain" consent...you lost, give it up Lost? I not trying to win, so, I can't lose and if you think I'm trying to "mansplain" anything you are the one that's lost. ;-)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.8417969