Jump to content

Talk:Consent in BDSM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First approximations: --Firewheel 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Scratchboard for my first thoughts and reactions.

Buzzwords and concepts:

Consent. Meta-Consent Negotiation Ethics.

EXplicit negotiation of relationships by individuals within a culture rather than reationships IMplicitly defined by the culture, even when those relationships seem outwardly identical to some expected cutural norm:

For example:

  • Consenting to wear a burkah as a sign of submission - OK.
  • Being forced to wear a burkah because family will murder you if you do not - NOT ok.

NOTE: BDSM ethics generalize to society in general better than the other way around. That's why they were developed. When people do this stuff without our ethics, they are generally harmed in some way.

Ethics developed to meet real needs in ethical ways without harm to self or others.

"Never assume, never presume." (a motto oft observed in the breech...)

Here endith my brainstorming. --Firewheel 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics are all important agreed on that.
However, the text states that 'Slave contract" is often used' I would rather say its quite rare. Of about 200 BDSM
practitioners I know only one have had a contract in the past and one other was suggested to have one but declined.
There are negotiations, but verbal ones. Over time there are none for example for couples who know each others well.
I took the liberty to change that to the more neutral 'sometimes' instead. Also added one ending about safeword, to show
that all this actually are a kind of advanced roleplay where one parter can decide to stop the roleplay at any time.
Then again there are a small number who decide to go without the safeword, but I felt that would complicate the description.

____

ClBracken: The statement "Several of the activities in sexual BDSM play would be considered illegal and fall under the definitions of rape, assault or similar crimes or torts, if performed without consent" is accurate - but also would be the statement "Several of the activities in CONSENSUAL SEX would be considered illegal and fall under the definitions of rape, assault or similar crimes or torts, if performed without consent." The entire tone of this article on consent is set by the focus on warning and implied legal hazards. In fact, in BDSM relationships and activity, consent is more explicit and respected than in "vanilla" dating. For example, there is awareness in BDSM communities that consent is impaired by alcohol or drugs (as is other self awareness necessary for safety during BDSM play). Imagine that same standard - NO INTOXICATION - applied to non BDSM dating and play. So can we re-write for a bit more objectivity? --ClBracken (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed this paragraph "However, rulings on consent make all negotiations null and void at the moment any of the participants withdraws consent. The concept of "Consensual non-consensuality" is voided by the right to "informed consent.""

First, of course is that different jurisdictions seem to view the issue of consent differently. The opinion that consensual non-consensuality is null and void is not cited. It is possible that in a given case in a given jurisdiction that it might be seen that way. But, not all jurisdictions would view it that way.

Also, informed consent is usually used to mean that a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action are understood by the people involved. So, trying to say that Consensual non-consensuality is voided by that right does not make sense. If a person understands and agrees to non consensuality for a period of time, then how does that understanding make non-consensuality not possible? I suppose, from a legal sense anyway, it is possible that non-consensuality may continue until the person revokes their consent, which is essentially, not really consensual non-consensuality. If that is the meaning, then it needs to be expressed better.

Picture relevance?

[edit]

What bearing does the picture have on the article, other than that it is, broadly, a BDSM picture and this is a BDSM article?♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The section labeled "Consentual non-consent is pretty clearly describing TPE. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the scene that agrees with the definition presented in this article. 174.49.194.142 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page to reflect this. UncommonGray (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPE is not a type of consent. It is a type of relationship dynamic. Consensual non-consent is quite distinct from rape play in kink literature, BDSM social circles, and sociological literature, except for a minority corner of the blogosphere/online kink world. CNC also specifically *excludes* safewords. Thus the definition placed in the article was problematic. --71.186.132.208 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) For the record: CNC is having no safeword but may include negotiated limits or expire. Negotiated limits or time periods is anathema to the concept of TPE. Total power exchange includes consensual nonconsent as a feature but CNC is not TPE. --71.186.132.208 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CNC does not specifically exclude safewords, and the current definition that does not mention safewords is problematic and dangerous. CNC is the one type of play where the majority of people in the BDSM community consider safewords to be essential. There are obviously people who believe that CNC can be practiced without a safeword, but they are in the minority. FlameHel (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SSC / RACK?

[edit]

Someone with a better understanding of it should edit in information about SSC (Safe, Sane, Conensual) and RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink). I admit I have only a passing familiarity with the concepts, but they're cornerstones of consent in BDSM communities. UncommonGray (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working to make it better

[edit]

Hey please bear with me while I work on this. There is so much wrong with this article. A huge example is consent is COMPLETELY NOT a defense in most places. The legal section was written by some armchair lawyer that doesn't understand things. The NCSF makes it clear in their Consent Counts campaign that it's not legal at all in the States for example. And the section itself mentions the Spanner case where it's not legal in the UK. It's not legal at all in any Anglophone country. And it's not just sexual stuff. Really it's most of the physical stuff like whipping and whatnot. Anyways please be patient with me as I work on this. If I am doing something wrong according to Wikipedia please leave me a message and explain. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing but I'm not really familiar with all the rules and there's so many and so much of them that it's super intimidating. I'll probably break some without realizing since they're so byzantine and crazy expansive. If I do tell me and I'll make it right. --Kinkykitteh (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Consent (BDSM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2019

[edit]

page states: As of February 2019, the law in the UK has been changed to allow for consent to acts that inflict injury.

Could a source be provided for this, as I am not sure it is true? Afanghanel (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very late to the party here, but, not sure how someone's supposed to provide a reliable source for there not being a reliable source.  {{cn}}'d. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. A UK statute was created that included consent to serious harm for sexual gratification is not a defence, restating the broad legal principle established in the case of R v Brown (1993, 2 W.L,R 556) that a person cannot consent to actual bodily harm or to other more serious injury or, by extension, to their own death (Domestic Abuse Act, 2021):
“No death or other serious injury – whatever the circumstances – should be defended as ‘rough sex gone wrong’ which is why we are making it absolutely clear that this is never acceptable. Perpetrators of these crimes should be under no illusions – their actions will never be justifiable in any way, and they will be pursued rigorously through the courts to seek justice for victims and their families.” Justice Minister Alex Chalk SusanWrightAZ (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consent (BDSM) → Consent in BDSM – The parenthetically-qualified syntax implies that consent is a distinct phrase or concept in BDSM compared to other contexts. The article does not bear that out, and rather begins with "consent within BDSM", later defining the term as "an explicit agreement to acts, terms and conditions"—the same definition as applies in non-BDSM contexts.

To avoid the erroneous implication that consent in BDSM is distinct from consent in general, we should move to Consent in BDSM, which is a more natural title anyways. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consent_in_BDSM&oldid=1250259440"