my subreddits

comments

Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|

English

this post was submitted on 25 May 2018

0 points (33% upvoted)

shortlink:

Submit a new text post

BDSMcommunity

subscribe103,154 kinksters

402 online

Welcome to BDSMcommunity

A hub for discussion, questions, help and conversation. Read below for this community's guidelines.

Our subreddit family

Rules

1. This is an 18+ subreddit.

If you are found out to be under 18 your post will be removed and you will be banned from our entire subreddit family.
Pictures or videos of underage people in any context are not allowed.

2. Don't spam.

Spam posts will be removed and regular spammers will be banned.
Personal blog links (Tumblr, etc.) and self promotion (Etsy shops, etc.) count as spam.

3. Personal attacks and blatant abuse will not be tolerated.

Name calling and personal attacks.
Homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.
Purposefully inciting arguments.
Threats.
Doxxing.

4. No starting drama.

Linking to posts from subreddits outside our family to complain about or brigade.
Any discussion or accusations of TRP or any other "pill" rhetoric or philosophies.
Purposely inflammatory posts.
Complaints about the official Discord or members of the Discord.

5. No personal ads.

Personal ads belong in /r/BDSMpersonals.
Advertising outside chat groups (Kik, Skype, Discord, etc.) is not allowed in any of our subreddits.
Do not give out personal contact information (Kik, Skype, Email, etc.).
Please don't redirect people posting personal ads to /r/BDSMpersonals. Report the posts and let the mods take care of it.

6. Posts must prompt discussion.

Please try to include a question or discussion prompt in your text posts.
Erotica, stories, anecdotes, vents, rants, gushes, brags, confessions, essays, journals, etc. don't offer much to be discussed and are better suited for /r/BDSMerotica or our monthly casual chat threads stickied at the top of the subreddit.
Posts with nothing or little more than links to images or articles belong in /r/BDSM, not /r/BDSMcommunity.
Posts that offer little to be discussed run the risk of being removed.

7. Surveys must be vetted by the mods.

Read our policy on surveys here.

8.Mods will use their discretion.

The /r/BDSM family mods will take things on a case by case basis and remove posts/comments and ban users at their discretion.

New to kink or our family of subreddits?

Need help?

Message the mods

created by bondagegirlBossLadya community for 8 years

MODERATORS

bondagegirlBossLady
brendhanDom
Darr_SynGrouchy Old Bastard of Kink
rarchivesSpam Bot
pikachuuuuu༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ full-time slave | masochist | pikachu
about moderation team »

Welcome to Reddit.

Where a community about your favorite things is waiting for you.

Become a Redditor

and subscribe to one of thousands of communities.

A thing about consent that I am scared is true (self.BDSMcommunity)

submitted 4 months ago by ialdabaoth

Based on many experiences I've had watching people in the kink community and people in the news interact with BDSM, rape, and general non-consensual douchebaggery, it feels like when you're powerful, you can forget that consent is necessary, because it often isn't.

And when you're powerless, you can forget that consent is possible, because it rarely matters.

I'm seriously afraid that "consent" is a thing that can only happen between social equals, and even then, it's pretty hard.

({X} = something like status / privilege / "SMV" / actual power, it's INCREDIBLY obvious what I mean if you know what I'm talking about but all rhetoric around the concept is poisoned so it's basically impossible for me to "name" it without contention)

A higher-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a lower-{X} person, because they can always revoke that consent later and make the revocation stick.

A lower-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a higher-{X} person, because the very nature of their dynamic clouds the line between agency and coercion.

If you're a relatively powerful person and enjoy kink, you have to basically make peace with the fact that consent is a joke, and hope you can just keep getting away with doing what you want because you're powerful.

If you're a relatively powerless person and enjoy kink, you have to basically make peace with the fact that consent is a joke, and hope you can just keep getting away with doing what you want because you aren't worth destroying.

If you're in the middle and most of the people you play with are in the middle, then consent actually is a real thing, and you should probably pay attention to it and try to do it properly, so that you don't wind up damaging yourself or your partner.

As I get older and see more and more bullshit, I become more and more afraid that this is how things actually work, and I get more and more scared that there's just no way to cleanly interact with anyone without serious moral risk.

all 28 comments

sorted by:

best

Want to add to the discussion?

Post a comment!

Create an account

[–]DrDragonQueen 18 points 4 months ago

Ok, so Truth Teller Bot said a lot of really great stuff, so Im not going to re-hash that. Instead I want to try and address what I think is the root of your issue (from cheekily checking your post history).

I think you’re terrified that you may do something you enjoy, with someone who at the time agrees and wants to do it, and then at a later point decides that they didn’t, and you end up in the shit. I also think that you’re so caught up in the potential danger of this that its clouding how you view sexual relationships.

Usually, seeing someone post on the redpill would be a red flag for me, but tbh you seem like you want to be a decent guy, and are just really confused and scared about sexual relationships and exchanges. There are going to be some people that you judge to be highly attractive who arent attracted to you, and vice versa. And it is HARD to find someone who you are attracted to that you are actually compatible with, who likes the same shit, and is on the same page, and gets you, both sexually, and non-sexually. There are going to be a lot of hot women who dont like the same shit as you, and that doesnt make them shallow or bitches (not your words) it just makes them incompatible with you. You do not wanna fuck about with people youre incompatible with, especially in ways where consent play is a factor.

Its really hard to determine what makes a social equal- it will differ on so many levels, and I feel its just a theory which politicises difference (on a micro scale, i.e. tit for tat) and turns social relationships into an algorithm.

My advice? Dont engage in any consensual non consent until you have your head straight on this, and maybe see a therapist? Philosophising is just going to mess with your more I think.

[–]Ticklish_Kink_Wife 8 points 4 months ago

[–]crispyfishdicksQueen of Nothing 6 points 4 months ago*

Look, I'm not going to deny that some relationships (and certainly NOT only bdsm ones) are skewed by a power balance that is not healthy, ex. a person not leaving a shitty partner because of financial reasons. This is shit, it's awful it happens, and I do not have the solution either.

That isn't the end all or be all, though. I'd argue my partner is currently higher on the social ladder (he has a good job, I am unemployed),yet that is not reflected in out interpersonal dynamic as much as you think. The only thing he does he chips in when he wants to go somewhere (and wants me to come along) because I can't make that sort of expenses.

Consent is not just a social thing but also a moral thing, and basically what you're implying here is that people who are higher on the "power" scale are inherently immoral and abuse power...and I'm just unwilling to believe that.

I'd even argue that every relationship is on some level "unequal" as there is no such thing is identical humans, so even if you have the same age/education status/income there are going to be differences.

I mean, putting human interaction into that matrix...makes it near impossible to have ANY sort of relationship.

In the end, at some point, you have to say: this human here, I'm going to trust them at least a little.

[–]TruthTellerBot24/7 Daddy, affectionate but strict 18 points 4 months ago

I don't really have a "nice" way of responding to this. I am getting a really odd feeling of moralizing, preaching and insufferable ignorance from your post. I can't really place it. It's like you mixed the most ludicrous concepts of both the far-left and the far-right in this one incredible theory of (lack of) consent.

I wholeheartedly and massively disagree with you.

I've had people with "lower X" than me, turn me away, and I've turned away people with "higher X". Yes; really noticeable difference in "X".

I have an extremely strong personality and take up a lot of space in a room and in most settings as a leader, and always have, since I was young. Does this now mean that people cannot consent to me, because of my personality, also? That, because I am white (is this what "privilege" means?) those who are not white cannot consent? Because I have money and a career, that everyone who does not, cannot?

You cannot just blanketly remove the agency of people like this. It is complete lunacy to do so, in fact, and is something I've honestly never heard of before.

I understand that you mean a distinction between "consent" and "meaningful consent", but it is just splitting hairs and threading around the issue. Here's what you're really saying:

You assign a "worth" to a person, and those above others cannot truly consent because they can truly consent. Yes, that's what "can always revoke" means. No, I don't mean you can revoke retro-actively, but the whole point of consent is that it is easily revokable.

You assign "worth" to a person, and those below others cannot truly consent because they are with someone "worth" more and as such will "consent" to them maybe even if they shouldn't. Yes, that is still consent. There's certainly people in relationships with their partner because of this intrinsic "worth" and its parameters, and not necessarily because of their personality or other "factors" you deem more wholesome... So fucking what? That is still consent. People choose to be with their partners. There's no "clouded line between agency and coercion" because one partner is "hotter" than the other, or "has more money". It is always the right of either partner to stop the relationship at any point. You feel as though the "lower" part cannot or perhaps would not, but that's not your call to make.

Personal choice exists. Trying to frame consent as some macabre power dynamic like this, twisted in all kinds of directions, is what is clouding the line. Consent is extremely simple. If someone says "Yes", then that is their choice. There is no such thing as "meaningful consent" or "non meaningful consent". If a person is unhappy, then it is their own responsibility to become happy. If a person is willingly engaged with a partner they don't want to be engaged with, then it is their own responsibility to stop.

Women can - and do - say "No", a lot more than men, I surmise. Does that mean that they are the privileged partner? Is that what this is about? That a man can never truly consent to a woman, because he should be happy he has a woman at all, and that while he might be able to get a wet sock for masturbatory aid, that she would have a line of men waiting to fill her up with dick, if they split up?

Think about how insane this sounds, friend.

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 1 point 4 months ago

[–]TruthTellerBot24/7 Daddy, affectionate but strict 5 points 4 months ago

So men, as they will likely always have a lower "SMV" than women, cannot consent. That is what you're saying?

That consent can only exist in a communist utopia where everyone earns the same amount of money, wears the same clothing, weighs the same, and are - in truth - just a big ol' amorphous blob?

Don't you have anecdotal evidence yourself? Of turning away a higher "X", or being turned away by a lower "X"? Doesn't that mere fact that it can happen once entirely disprove your concocted theory, here?

EDIT: I also need to stress that the way you said "higher X" cannot consent, is precisely what consent is. I must emphasize that you have to understand that. Consent isn't something given which then cannot be revoked. That isn't meaningful in the slightest. Saying "You cannot consent because you can revoke your consent" is an oxymoron, because the whole concept of consent is predicated on it being revokeable.

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 2 points 4 months ago

[–]TruthTellerBot24/7 Daddy, affectionate but strict 5 points 4 months ago*

Alright, so now that we're talking about what you're "okay with" and not "the theory of what is meaningful consent" I take it you accept that this is an idealogical discussion, rather than a scientific one? No more theorizing on "does consent exist?" and moreso "how do we handle consent?"

I'm with you in that consent cannot be retroactively revoked. The whole idea is abject lunacy. I've heard of that happening in the U.S., but never in my country and I would surmise that particular issue to be so extremely miniscule that I fail to see the importance of even discussing in.

We are, however, on the subject, and I repeat: I am one-hundred-percent in sync with your view on it.

Now the topic of "coercion" as a whole, is interesting, while "consent" is not. At what point does a discussion become coercion? Am I coerced when my submissive convinces me to choke her after I've said no, but she persists? Is a surbordinate coerced when their boss makes a pass at them, and they agree because they feel pressured, even though they've been given no reason to?

There are laws in place to protect those not fully developed, saying that they cannot consent. Being an adult, however, means you take responsibility for your own actions. Personal responsibility. I cannot on-my-own perceive there to be coercion and then attribute negative attributes to my boss, like above example, if she were to make a romantic pass at me. I would tell her I'm not interested.

I cannot go along with her, consenting, and then say in six months when we break up, that I felt coerced and "forced", because she was my boss. Workplace relations are not illegal. The onus is on both partners equally, to consent or not consent to such a relation.

If my boss were to say "Fuck me or I fire you" that is coercion. This implied or perceived leveraged status and power is an interesting debate, and I would ultimately find, I think, that actual adult agency trumps all else, and that any rational adult should be able to voice their disinterest.

Now, if they do and it is ignored, that is all kinds of awful, there's no question.

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 1 point 4 months ago

[–]TruthTellerBot24/7 Daddy, affectionate but strict 10 points 4 months ago

[–]fading_realityTop 6 points 4 months ago*

A lower-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a higher-{X} person, because the very nature of their dynamic clouds the line between agency and coercion.

can you expand on this? because it seems a bit, that the implication you make is that higher X makes person unable to make decision like honoring consent.

you could argue that position of privilege/power etc makes person unable to clearly see how consent applies in relation to them - they often probably don't spend too much time analyzing if person interacting with them does that because they want to interact or because of the status/power/etc, but i don't see that it is necessarely allways the case.

or it is some of the variety of redpill shit about status?

EDIT, in case someone has to google, like i had to - SMV is sexual market value.

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 2 points 4 months ago

[–]fading_realityTop 3 points 4 months ago

i don't believe that there is SMV.

there are traits, that majority of people prefer - some have to do with body, like being fit and symmetric, some have to do with behavior - anxious people make others anxious and lots of people don't like to feel that way. access to money makes access to lot of things easier, like clothing made to measure, paying for improv comedy class etc. but none of these things are inherently sought out. this is where their theory falls apart - people get involved with people, who are anxious, not particulary pretty, poor etcetc. from what i have read in trp, they seem to work around this by stating something along the lines of betas for betas, so that they can continue to pretend that universally wanted alpha even exists is true.
but i think it is just to justify their inability to understand that by working towards the healthier parts of supposed alpha, they are working towards removing things, that people don't like in them.

all the "game status" thing fall apart in two counts. if you go out and ask 100 girls to have sex with you, you are almost guaranteed, that at least one will consider it and you will go to negotiating phase. heck, do a low effort version and point to your shirt that says, "looking for sex". it will still be less creepy than all the attempts at manipulation.

the second count is poly. if the person gains some sort of status by having other person to interact with them, how exactly the status thing gets resolved between the multiple partners from the "shared" partners perspective? sometimes there are negotiated rules, like primary and secondary partners, but it has to do with living together and being compatible in questions related to doing dishes, not some mystical {x} implied here.

idk, if i make sense, but perhaps we would need to steelman your argument to see, where is the weaknesses in that.

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 1 point 4 months ago

[–]ialdabaoth[S] 3 points 4 months ago

[–]fading_realityTop 3 points 4 months ago

i can understand your feelings, you are bringing in the question of consent in somewhat controversial way in place where everyone have somewhat strong opinion what consent is and how it should work.

there is something in how you worded the questions that somehow triggers unpleasant reactions. i cannot pinpoint it, but the feeling is there.

but moving on and addressing your original thesis. especially seeing that your intention is to figure it out, not to present it as truth. :)

for sake of argument i will agree that there is market in witch we compete (i disagree with the idea of market and especially competition, at least if it is applied universally, but lets see merit of your original argument)

let's see specifically "A lower-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a higher-{X} person, because the very nature of their dynamic clouds the line between agency and coercion." this part.

By your argument it seems, that someone with lower SMV - (let's control for other variables and take two woman, with similar traits except bodytype) cannot meaningfully consent to the higher SMV woman, because she can be rejected and will not have access of the "same value" person.

do i understand it right? would you say that according to your original post it is true?

[–]freakyswitchlight 3 points 4 months ago

So situations where consent is likely to be coerced and not freely given involve situations where a person in power can harm a person with less power of they are rejected. If a boss hits on an employee, and especially if that employee would be financially distressed to lose their job, the employee may feel they have to go along with it because they're scared of losing their job. If the "yes" is given out of fear of retribution, then it's meaningless. That fear could be of physical violence, financial retribution, damaged career, etc.

The discussion of SMV is ridiculous. I am not conventionally attractive in many ways. I can and have turned down partners who are more conventionally attractive and financially successful than me. I'm actually more attracted to people like me who are kind of dorky. If somebody who is generally considered to be attractive asks me out, what would stop me from being able to give meaningful consent? It's not as if their attractiveness will harm me if I say no.

[–]PecanSaladReddit 3 points 4 months ago*

"I'm seriously afraid that "consent" is a thing that can only happen between social equals, and even then, it's pretty hard."

Kinky people who care about consent tend to work very hard to make sure that's not how consent functions. Everyone's consent is as important when you're on equal footing, as it is when you shift the power dynamic for play. As in any group of people, you'll have folks who aren't so great at it, and you'll have folks who blatantly disregard it, so it's important to choose your partners with care, in addition to doing things to mitigate the unwanted effects of power dynamic on communication about consent.

"If you're a relatively powerful person and enjoy kink, you have to basically make peace with the fact that consent is a joke, and hope you can just keep getting away with doing what you want because you're powerful."

"If you're a relatively powerless person and enjoy kink, you have to basically make peace with the fact that consent is a joke, and hope you can just keep getting away with doing what you want because you aren't worth destroying."

Neither of these describe me, or anyone I would ever want to play with. Whether I'm on the low end of a power dynamic or the high end, each person's ongoing, informed, affirmative consent is the foundation our interaction is built upon. Without it, what I want to do with people simply is not possible in any ethical shape or form. My partners and I work very hard to ensure that we have on-going communication about consent and other pertinent issues before, during, and after play. I'm not going to do physically and emotionally risky stuff with people, power dynamic included or not, unless I can be sure everyone involved is consenting, and can bow out free of negative consequences at any time.

I'd go on to suggest that people who would fit either description have a hell of a lot of personal work to do before they give any aspect of BDSM a shot. Therapy sounds good to me.

If you enter into play or a dynamic consensually after having negotiated on equal footing, have mechanisms for communication in place, and are prepared to touch base on equal footing as needed, you can play with those types of dynamics, feelings, and themes; but anyone who legitimately thinks their consent, or the consent of their partner, is actually meaningless is someone I'd stay way the fuck away from.

[–]PervOtaku 1 point 3 months ago

This sort of thing is never not going to be a problem, because of human nature. What you are talking about here is also a subset of confirmation bias issues.

A higher-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a lower-{X} person, because they can always revoke that consent later and make the revocation stick.

I.e., the drunken college hook up that the girl regrets the next morning, and it's incredibly easy for her to cry "rape" because so many people are primed to expect college guys to be rapists

A lower-{X} person cannot meaningfully "consent" to a higher-{X} person, because the very nature of their dynamic clouds the line between agency and coercion.

I.e., the student who is extremely happy to be having sex with her teacher, or the underage girl who is extremely happy to be having sex with an older guy. It's generally assumed that she was coerced into it, because that is a thing that also happens.

Or for that matter, the supposed #metoo "backlash" where male executives are starting to not allow themselves to be anywhere alone with a female coworker, because they are afraid of false sexual harassment accusations that will be 100% believed because sexual harassment is a genuine problem a lot of the time.

Of course the weird part is you always hear about the worst cases from both sides of this, i.e. you hear about the guy whose life was ruined by rape or harassment accusations later admitted to be false, but you also hear about the guy who absolutely raped the girl but gets away with it because his slick lawyer built a successful victim-blaming defense. Both of these things are bad, and it's folly to concentrate on the fact that one happens while ignoring the other. Every case should be evaluated on its own merits alone, with no biases built on social concern.

[–][deleted] 0 points 3 months ago

permalink
save
report
reply

[–][deleted] 4 months ago

[removed]

[–]vammalammadingdongsmart-assed masochist 8 points 4 months ago

[–]DazedDoom -1 points 3 months ago

[–]South_in_AZ 6 points 4 months ago

[–]DazedDoom -2 points 3 months ago

[–]amabilis1111Mommy Domme / Dragon of Chaos 3 points 4 months ago

[–]pikachuuuuu༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ full-time slave | masochist | pikachu[M] 2 points 3 months ago

[–]DazedDoom 0 points 3 months ago

Subreddit Theme by /u/raiskream

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BDSMcommunity

Welcome to BDSMcommunity

Our subreddit family

Subreddits

Rules

1. This is an 18+ subreddit.

2. Don't spam.

3. Personal attacks and blatant abuse will not be tolerated.

4. No starting drama.

5. No personal ads.

6. Posts must prompt discussion.

7. Surveys must be vetted by the mods.

8.Mods will use their discretion.

New to kink or our family of subreddits?

/r/BDSMfaq

Need help?

Message the mods

MODERATORS

Welcome to Reddit.

Want to add to the discussion?