Posted by DR on July 29, 2005 at 08:11 [67.83.76.91]
In Reply to: Re: Stories by Hal posted by Ibee M. on July 29, 2005 at 07:05
Ibee M. wrote:
"With regards to BDSM, there is the argument that the supposed 'victim' truly wants the experience at some level, the desire perhaps being subconscious.
"In other BDSM situations, there is no ambiguity; involved parties enter in to their respective roles with full knowledge (but perhaps not without full understanding)."
Yes, I would generally agree with those statements. But the bounds of consensuality aren't necessarily limited there. For instance, I know some couples for which the slave gave only the most modest initial consent, but completely lost consent thereafter. Even if she does not want to be there, consciously or subconsciously, she may not leave until he releases her or she dies. Even if she hates him or hates her slavery completely, she is not free to go. But IMO, those relationships are consensual -- yet do not meet with your above two aphorisms.
Even in my relationship with my slave -- she has no say. I've given her the ultimate option of "obey or leave" but I may rescind the "leave" part at any time. If she decides tomorrow that she hates diapers completely, I'm still going to put her in them.
My point to L.E. was simply that the phrase, "more consensual" is troublesome because that implies a universal standard by which consensuality is understood and judged. However, no such standard exists, and thus the notion of consensuality depends entirely on one's assumption set.