55yrs • M •
Anon8 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
||A logical case for the loss of consent.
Please discuss this, I would like to see the opinions of those both with and with out a "dog in this fight"
Case for the Possible Loss of Functional Consent.
The D/s community is replete with claims that consent is a the heart of the D/s relationship.
This case is a study in the manner by which De Facto or functional consent may be lost while the appearance of De joure consent may be claimed.
First some definitions
De Facto -
adj 1. Actual
De Jure -
noun by right; according to law (in this case agreement or contract)
verb - to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield
noun - permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence:
Operant conditioning -
noun. Psychology A process of behavior modification in which the likelihood of a specific behavior is increased or decreased through positive or negative reinforcement each time the behavior is exhibited, so that the subject comes to associate the pleasure or displeasure of the reinforcement with the behavior
"Training involves education and re-education, in essence the delving deeply into what the submissive/slave knows and then reformatting and instilling new thoughts, acceptance and understanding of his/her role"
Undo influence -
Verb It is the pressure, coercion or influence exerted by some person on other person, with an intention to influence his presence of mind for drawing undue benefits from him.
In a D/s relationship the Dominant will attempt to train a submissive, so as to change the submissive in some way either to an agreed upon goal or an open ended arrangement. There are many forms and methods both mental and physical to this end. There will often be contracts and limits agreed upon by both parties. This is the general view of the D/s relationship as per the "community"
The 3 legs that hold up the ideals of the D/s community are "Safe Sane and Consensual " without these the community decrees actions as abuse.
Let us look at the most basic argument that the " Consensual " ideal undermined by the very act of "Training" or in the best light may be undermined.
Fiat, that the initial contact and agreement by a submissive with a dominant is both De Facto and De Jure consensual. The "consensual" leg stands firm.
Now as a submissive beings to be trained to fulfill what ever roll the dominant has created we may begin to have a problem.
Let us posit the first step on training is for the submissive is to be more compliant with the dominants wishes.
" the whole point of being submissive is to be compliant and to follow the lead of another:"
Thus we have an interesting situation. the dominant is trying to get the submissive to be more compliant. But only with their consent but the heart of consent is that it is made with no "undo influence", by any standard Training contains many elements of " undo influence."
Can these too be reconciled ? A person being trained to be compliant while at the same time being required to have the ability to fully consent ?
Let us posit that in this hypothetical D/s relationship the D has started training the submissive . The methods of a D to do this are myriad. Many if not all are forms of "operant conditioning" which by definition causes " the likelihood of a specific behavior is increased " .
Now given this let us argue that the D has selected either with intent or not (a distinction with out difference ) that the "behavior" to be modified is the giving of consent by the submissive.
In short the D has begun to remove functional consent from the relationship.
A simple logic test
1 Can a D use Training /operant conditioning to change the thinking ,behaviors and actions of a submissive (Y/N)
2 Can the giving of consent bee seen as thought / behavior / action (Y/N)
If looked at from a logical prospective both are must be a least possible. In fact the D/s relationship is effectively based both being answered in the affirmative.
Since in this case successfully changing the behavior / action of giving consent will result in the submissive no longer having the ability to form true and effective consent.
The table that holds the D/s relationship now has a broken leg, and can not stand on the other two.
Why not one may ask.
Safe - The D/s community stresses SAFE with things like contracts and safe words all well and good, but in this case the submissive will not avail these tools as they have been trained to consent as the default in most given situations. So leg 2 is now broken
"Sane Power exchange is about trust -- trust that the person who has the power in a scene will use it responsibly"
Due to the now hollow consent, the submissive made by operant conditioning and training any trust that may have existed as been broken. Thus leg 3 has been cracked and can bear no weight.
We can see that it is possible that De facto consent CAN be lost, even while the De jure actions that may seem to be consent continue.
Given this the claims of the D/s community that "consent" is always given and can never be lost loses some of its luster and as a pillar it has cracks at its base.