Stated And True Consent

Introduction

This is going to be a short piece. It is such a simple concept that there does not seem to be much to say on the subject. Still, it is one that some people still manage to miss in their enthusiasm, their convenient ignorance, or whatever. It is the notion that often, for a variety of reasons, the "stated" consent that someone gives is actually quite different to what they are, or would be, truly consenting to.

Some Examples Of Stated Consent

In one of the most classic scenarios in the scene, someone asks us to ignore their pleas. They want to be able to abandon themselves in to the space of the powerless, abused victim. Yet, what happens when things go further than they expect? When the fun fear becomes just pure fear?

A lot of times I have had submissives that are new to the scene ask to be allowed to become my slave, to serve without rights. It is a flattering offer and one that I am sure most of us would love to take up. When asked if they understand what it means, they assure us that they do and that they are willingly, freely and knowingly giving their full consent. Yet, what happens when they discover that having no rights might well mean that their treasured, powerful, kinky orgasms might be denied indefinitely? When they discover that, you know, I have bad days too and I am not always the world's greatest person? When they discover that serving me involves getting up an hour before me to ensure that my shirts are ironed and my breakfast is prepared? When they discover that serving me might involve putting the condom on and then simply watching, wishing it were them, while I play with someone else?

In the movie Nine And A Half Weeks, there is a scene where Kim Bassinger's character is blindfolded. She has consented to the blindfold, to the element of risk, that anything could be happening. Yet she finds that Mickey Rourke's character has introduced a female prostitute in to the room and is pushing a woman on her, an act [it is implied] she would not have consented to had she realised what it meant.

Discussion And Conclusions

In all of those examples, consent has been given. In each case, a generalized consent is given, yet specific acts within that consent go beyond what the person giving it ever truly meant to consent to, whether they, themselves, realize it or not yet. Perhaps they were naive; perhaps they were inexperienced; perhaps they did not think; perhaps they should have specified limits first. Whatever they should have done differently, it is our job as Dominants - actually, to digress, it is everyone's job, whether Dominant or not, as part of a consent based larger scene - to ensure that real consent, whenever it is recognised, is honored just as much as, in fact more so than, the stated consent.

The moment we realise that someone has stated their consent to more than we believe they truly intended to, it is our duty to attempt to help them realize that and then clarify (by discussing limits; safewords; offering them the ability to reaffirm their consent, ensuring they realize what may or will happen; etc.). To continue, to deliberately lead them down a path we know they would never, knowingly, have consented to, simply because we have a misguided initial consent is simply abuse.

Mistakes happen, I am not trying to pretend that we can always read minds and will always be able to catch these distinctions. All I am saying is that: the moment we realize, it becomes our duty to act. To do wrong, when you know it is wrong, no matter how many semantic loopholes you may think you see, always remains wrong.

SoulThief