Almost without fail, when a person new to BDSM begins asking questions about how to go about things in this perverted little world of ours, one word will come up repeatedly: consent. Whether you are a proponent of SSC, RACK or just the general concept of safe play; consent is the one thing everything else is predicated upon. Even in cases of ‘rape play’, its ‘consensual nonconsent’ that is the allure. In that case the concept is so nice they named it twice. Its what protects us from allegations, keeps us safe and that from which all other things flow. Consent is a foundational, meaning everything else is built up on it.
We may bicker and argue and debate the merits of this type of play or that, the safety of an activity, the skill of a player or any of a zillion other things; but it almost always comes back to ‘well, they consented so there you go.’ It’s our stop gap, our fallback, our retreat position. Consent is supposed to be what keeps players on both sides of the whip safe from harm of both the mental and physical varieties.
It all sounds very textbook and thorough and finite. You consent to a thing, you get the thing you consented to. The implication is that so long as consent is given, no other factors should be taken into account when dealing with an event that left a person uncomfortable in some way. As in. ’so you consented to be flogged, you dont get to gripe about bruises now’. Right about here is where speeches about personal responsibility, negotiations, being self educated, etc.. get spouted, often with great gusto and even derision.
Not that the speech givers are wrong: there absolutely should be personal responsibility, education and negotiations undertaken by all parties in a scene. But what happens if a player didnt talk it to great lengths before getting up on that cross? Well the cyclical argument now starts eating itself like the proverbial snake. ‘But still you consented so….’.
It can be very easy at this point to just say ‘be educated and be careful who you trust but when you consent, its game over so dont be crying about it after the fact when you said yes… Dozens of these arguments end right here. Very few times does anyone look deeper into the issue to see whats at the heart of the matter.
Consent isnt the be all and end all of the negotiation process. As a top or a bottom, your goal is not to just get a scene underway. Its not a competition or a race. You dont ‘win’ just because you manage to get a scene in. Your goal is to facilitate a scene that will benefit both parties while still ensuring safety (this goes for tops and bottoms alike). Its not ‘oh hey, a post just opened up, lets get up there and get beaten’, its ‘I’d like to play tonight and here are the things I’d like to get out of it, how can I get that and also have my partner get their needs met and us both walk away with only the type of sensation/emotion we want from it’
So whats the difference? Information leading to the consent, or more succinctly worded: Informed Consent.
To consent to a thing means to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield to it. Basically it means ‘I say yes’. Informed consent means to approve or comply based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. Or ‘I understand what is going to be done, how it can possibly effect me in as many ways as possible and I say yes.’ Thats a very big difference. And one not alot of people actually take the time to actually embrace.
Informed consent can be hard to determine. Expressions of consent nor expressions of the understanding of possible implications necessarily mean that full consent was in fact given nor that full comprehension of all relevant issues was understood.Just because someone says ‘yes! i wanna be single tailed!’ doesnt mean they are aware that they could have marks or even bleeding as a result. ‘Common sense’ may tell us that this is in fact a possibility, but common sense is never common. Never assume anyone is aware of every implication just because it seems like ’something everyone should know’. If you are the top, tell your bottom what could happen. If you are the bottom, ask your Top what might result from the scene. Both should be proactive in obtaining and relaying any information relevant to a scene.
Many people rely on that consent may be implied within the usual subtleties of human interaction rather than being explicitly negotiated.You hear this one alot ‘well, you never said no..’. Lack of a no does not automatically mean informed consent has been given. ‘Yes’ is the only thing that means yes, and if you really wanna be one of the cool kids ‘yes, i understand that x,y or z could happen and i still say yes’ is really the only ‘yes’ you wanna move forward with.
In some cases consent cannot realistically be possible, even if the person protests he does indeed understand . This is especially true in cases where a person is not made aware of all the possible effects of an event (flogging can lead to bruising, violet wands may lead to first degree burns, etc..) or if either party is suffering from ‘diminished mental capacity’. If you aren’t aware that your top has issues with anger outbursts, memory impairment, etc.. as the result of an organic process then if a negative outcome arises from the scene it can be legitimately argued that informed consent was never given based on the lack on information relayed at the time consent was requested . Basically, be proactive. Ask the questions, give the answers. Both with as much honesty and authenticity as possible and the risk of negative outcomes decreases exponentially.
The crux of the matter when it comes to Informed Consent is : had the individual been made aware of the risk would they have proceeded with the activity?
- Do you sign up for a credit card based ONLY on the credit limit? Or do you look at the interest rate and yearly fee before signing up?
- Do you buy a house just because it has 3 bedrooms? Or do you have it inspected to make sure its up to code and you wont have to replace the roof/plumbing/electrical in the next little while?
- Do you hire a new employee just because they say they know the things required for the job? Or do you check references, inquire about education levels and assess if their personality meshes well with your existing team?
We take time and care to assess risk and reward in so many aspects of our lives, but then when we decide to place our lives in the care of someone else/ take the life of someone in our own hands (sometimes literally: breathplay, fireplay, edgeplay, etc…) we simply settle for ‘oh that looks like fun, lets do that!’ It seems ill advised at best, downright dangerous and negligent at worst to go about BDSM in such a capricious manner.
As tops we should ask about health issues, possible triggers, hard limits, soft limits, preferences, needs, desires, etc.. that could affect play and relay that same information about ourselves to our partner. As bottoms we should do exactly the same.When in doubt, more information is better. This is not a race against the clock, there is always time. If you dont get the scene in tonight there is no reason it cant happen another night. Basically any excuse for not relaying as much information as possible is just that: an excuse. Where there are excuses there are generally also other issues. Smoke and fire go together in the cliche for a reason.
BDSM is a constant learning process. Learning about skills, theory, interpersonal dynamics, philosophies, and on and on. Just because a scene ‘went bad’ does not mean that a person was/is bad. It can often be viewed as a way to assess what did and did not work well in an effort to make sure history and mistakes do not repeat themselves. Everyone involved in a scene has the responsibility to try and make it as safe and fulfilling a scene as possible and 99 times out of 100 communication will be the best way to make sure that happens.
Just because a ‘yes’ was given is not the end of the story, or even the beginning of a scene. Often times its just the starting off point for entire conversations.
~kim
Kink In Motion
