Predators & Politeness: A post for Kinky AND Vanilla Ladies

First-  A bit of backstory on this one:
Almost a week ago this post appeared on Fetlife and made it's way to K&P: None of your fucking business.
The gist of the story is that a lady, enjoying a coffee at the mall on her own was approached by some creepy guy who asked her, "What's your name, sweetheart?"
She responded by telling him that her name was none of his fucking business, and the responders to that post went, well... Postal. Especially the guys.
Apparently a great many of the male respondents had issues with a woman replying to an unwelcomed advance with anything other than the prettiest of manners.

Today this response made it's way to K&P, and it's brilliant: Entitled asshats don't deserve politeness.
(That's not the real title, just my two cents, BTW)

In it the author (who is highly educated and who dealt with abusive and predatory behaviors in an official capacity) states, "See, in the world of a predator, polite behaviors are the characteristics of a ‘mark’, an easy victim. My studies repeatedly reported that women who walk with their heads down, dress conservatively, speak softly and are polite as in ‘old school’ polite are seen by predators as more likely victims. It’s a myth that the confident, loud or even sexily dressed women draw the predator. The loud woman who walks with her head up and appears confident is more likely to make a fuss. More trouble makes it harder for the abusive individual to get what they want."

And that makes sense, which brings me to the point of my bloggy thing:

When newbie subs enter the Kinkyverse they're often buried under and figurative mountain of polite, and far more often, impolite virtual advances. One of the questions they will end up asking is "How do I respond to a dom when I'm not interested?"

And without fail, they will get the answer "Respond politely and respectfully..."

That's not surprising. Loads of people think that just because some random Dudebro has given himself a title he deserves respect (he doesn't), and loads of folks think that the appropriate way to respond to an advance from a stranger is with politeness... There's a lot of social conditioning that comes into play here.

There's also a lot of entitlement from some (I'm not going to say ALL) guys when it comes to unwelcome advances.
Those guys get really pissy when confronted with the fact that their advances might not be welcome and that a woman has the right to rebuff that advance in whatever way she sees fit. They think that just because they managed to make their way over to a random woman and managed to open their yap to make noises come out, she's obligated to respond nicely to them.

"If I've drummed up enough courage to approach you, the least you can do is be nice to me..."

Because: Entitlement.

And because guys just don't understand what it's like to be a girl, minding her own business, only to have some dudebro who thinks he's entitled to her time come and hit on/"compliment"/whatever her because that's what he wants (so who care if she doesn't want that).

And never mind the fact that there are some guys won't take a polite "no thanks" for an answer and see that polite turn-down as a soft "yes" to their unwelcome advances.

All of that brings me to this:

There are quite a few unpleasant people in the Kinkyverse, just like there are quite a few unpleasant people in Vanillaland, and those people- The ones who ping your Gut's internal Creep Radar? They don't deserve a "polite and respectful" decline. They deserve whatever you feel you need to say to get them to leave you the fuck alone, and if that response is "None of your fucking business" or "Leave me the fuck alone"? You have every right to say that. How they feel about it? It's not your problem.

Make a fuss if you need to.

(and seriously, if you're a member of Fet, go read that brilliant post).

Consent in BDSM Vs Consent in Fifty Shades of Grey

Consent, in the context of Vanilla (non-kinky) life is usually a pretty straight forward thing.

If someone says "Yes" they are consenting to an activity.
If someone says "No" they do not consent to that activity.

It's pretty simple, right?

And I suspect that's why, in Fifty Shades of Grey, the issue of consent as it's practiced in The Kinkyverse is a little (or a lot) misunderstood.

In the books and movies, Ana says "Yes" at one point and that one yes is being used to excuse Christian's inexcusable behavior. That one "Yes" is the reason some people outside the Kinkyverse are saying, "It's not abuse, it's consensual kink!"

The problem is- That's not how consent works in the Kinkyverse. There are shades of consent, and probably far more than fifty of them.

Our consent is a highly complex issue, and using Ana as an example, a great many responsible, educated kinksters would not count her wishy-washy "Yes" as consent. Why?

Well, first because Christian is asking for something called Blanket Consent. It's the type of consent that applies to everything that may be asked of a person in a relationship, and is usually reserved for people who know what they're getting into or people who have been practicing their relationship dynamic for some time. Nobody worth their beans would request blanket consent from a newbie because a newbie cannot make that sort of informed decision.

A newbie, who knows nothing, cannot give informed consent, so if Ana can't give her consent because she lacks the information to make a wise choice, that "Yes" is null and void.

Informed consent is what kinksters should be aiming for (and as much as I hate saying "should" about anything, I'll make an exception for this because it's that important).

Informed consent doesn't just mean that you simply know what a butt plug is, to use Ana again as an example.
It means that you understand and accept the risks involved in playing with that certain toy and finding those risks acceptable you still agree to play with that toy. The same goes for any BDSM play or practices a person might participate in- Informed consent means that you know exactly what it is you're agreeing to and you understand and accept all of the risks that may be involved in what you're agreeing to, and you still want to give your consent.

Which moves us on to another point in the consent discussion- Wanting to consent.

First, someone has to freely agree to something for it to be considered consent.
What this means is that with no outside influence or pressure they decide that what they are agreeing to is what they want.
Ana's consent was not freely given in the books. Often when she agreed to something it was because Christian was threatening her with something else that she found even less pleasant than what was about to happen.
It's not consent if there is coercion involved (the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats).

Second is the really wanting bit- I like to call it Enthusiastic Consent.
"Eh, I guess I'll do this kink thing because otherwise I might end up a spinster with 50 grey cats" isn't really enthusiastic, is it?
"I guess I'll do this kinky thing because if I don't he'll dump me." doesn't sound all that enthusiastic either, does it?
It kind of sounds like that person is choosing what they consider to be the least bad thing of two pretty shitty things, not like someone who is consenting because "Hey, this kink thing sounds lie it'll be a hell of a lot of fun and WOOOoooOO! I want to play!"

And you know, there are plenty of people who consent to kinky play they're not all that thrilled about because they want to please their partner, but even then it's not a "Eh" kind of consent, it's a "Woo! He's going to be so happy and that makes me happy! Wooo!" or a thing that they find adds to their fulfillment in other ways.

Poor Ana never has a "Woo!" moment about consenting to kink. It's all kind of sad and makes her feel bad about herself and she doesn't want it. She doesn't want to submit...

So what kind of consent is that?

Kink really should contribute to a person feeling good about their relationship, the other person in that relationship, and themselves. The people in that relationship- ALL the people involved- Should be giving informed, enthusiastic consent to the play and the dynamic they are planning on instituting in that relationship.

And finally, one of the most troubling aspects of consent in 50SoG...

Revoking Consent.

Any type of consent, even blanket consent, can be revoked at any time.

At one point in the book Christian enters Ana's home and proceeds to... Chastise? Punish? Threaten? her in her bedroom.
Ana says "No."
Readers know that what she's referring to is the idea that she may have stinky feet. Christian DOES NOT know this as he cannot hear her thoughts. He heard "no" and what did he do? He didn't stop. In the books this is portrayed as "Dominance"... It's NOT.

A boy heard "no" the other day when reenacting a scene from Fifty Shades with a lady friend, he didn't stop, and in real life that has some pretty nasty words associated with it- Assault and Rape.

Once someone revokes their consent- With whatever words they chose to say (No, Stop, Red, Whatever), you STOP and after you stop you communicate about why your partner felt you needed to stop.

When consent is removed you are no longer participating in consensual kinky fun times with your enthusiastic, consenting partner. What you're doing is assaulting them in a way that can be persecuted by law enforcement officials.

And honestly, this is only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to consent in the Kinkyverse. The nuances and shades of it are so complex that even for experienced kinksters it can get confusing... So I don't really blame the Vanilla folks for not understanding it. They can't be expected to know what they don't know.

But... It's not that hard to learn the basics either.

BDSM Code Words, Ambiguity, & Safety

Yesterday, a lady came into the Submissive Women's forum I frequent with an issue:
On previous occasions she and her partner had discussed anal play and she had expressed a disinterest in it, I believe her exact words to her partner were "I'm not interested in that."

For most folks, I would hope, that would be a pretty clear indication not to pursue anal play, but her partner decided that while she was spacing to fiddle with her bum... She is, to say the least, unhappy and feels that he might have broken her trust.

Many people advised the OP to make anal play a hard limit.

Today, another lady started a thread questioning why "I'm not interested" wasn't enough and why someone should have to make something a hard limit to have their reluctance to participate in an unwanted activity respected.

It started me thinking.

There's an idea floating around in the Kinkyverse that "no" doesn't always mean "no." We sometimes have safe words so that we can participate in play where we want to protest or say "no" without play stopping. Sometimes play won't stop until a safe word has been used. Safe words and the sometimes-ambiguity of "no" is such a big deal that there are a plethora of blogs written about it... A BDSM code word is required to stop play.

So we've got this idea that plain English isn't serious and we need to use a code word to express how serious a "no" actually is.

Thinking more, I wondered if the "no doesn't always mean no so have a safe word" school of thought might be affecting other plain-spoken communication. Communication your average submissive would expect to be heard and respected by a partner?

It's not impossible to imagine that someone who is hung up on safe words and play involving protest might view "Hard Limit" in the same light... "I'm not interested in that" could be seen as a faux protest to that person, leaving them with the feeling that it's OK to try that activity because they didn't hear the unambiguous "Hard Limit" code word to indicate that anal play was definitely off the table.

The code word makes what previously would have been seen as clear communication ambiguous.

It's really effing complicated.

But I suppose having heard about it, it's something that s-types and D-types should be aware of, and discuss before playing, because having your butthole diddled while spacing is a pretty tame activity when compared to some of the shit we can say "I'm not interested in that" about.

So...

S-types, just to be safe, it might be a good idea that you communicate to a new partner that when you express a disinterest in something you mean it. That disinterest is a hard limit until you say other wise, "I am not interested in that, it is a hard limit."

D-types, also to be safe, it might be a good idea if you ask a new partner how serious they are when they express a disinterest in something without calling it a hard limit. It might be protest play, but it might not... And if it's not? If you go ahead without consent, you both might end up feeling pretty awful about whatever happened. Nobody wants that.

Dominants Suffer From Truism Too.

I don't usually dissect posts about dominants. They're not the focus of my interests, I'm more about the s-type side of things and the stuff that affects our lives... Which makes sense because that's the side of the slash I have experience on. Write what you know and all that.

Then! I found the post I'm about to eviscerate here in a few minutes and I thought to myself, "Self, we're really doing the decent domly sorts a disservice by not sticking up for them when we stumble upon stupid shit that dictates what they have to do to be true. We really should be pointing out how the True shit hurts those on the other side of the slash as much as it hurts us. Folks should know that there is no one specific thing (or a list of them) that makes a domly "true."

And submissive folks should know that what makes for a "True" dom doesn't necessarily make that guy "right for you." Which is far more important in my book.


True Doms Do XYZ!
a post by: Some Blathering Douchecanoe.
(And no, sorry, I'm not driving traffic towards this guys inane drivel. No link)
My thoughts in Mauve. Mauve is today's color of annoyance.

A Dominant Should Be
… everything to his submissive.
Encouraging someone to have such a limited view of life is not cool. Nobody should be anybody's everything. A) Because it's impossible and B) it's unhealthy to depend or expect that much from another human being. It's an unfair burden to place on someone's shoulders.

A Dominant is a lover, a teacher, a caretaker, a father-figure, a rock.
A dominant is those things ONLY if he agrees to be those things. Not all doms have an interest in being those things and not all submissives want their d-type partner to be those things. Some of us are fully capable of educating ourselves, we already have dads or father figures and don't want/need another, and rocks are a dime a dozen... Unless we're talking about emeralds or The Rock. I hear he cooks.

A submissive needs things from her Dom, some need the removal of certain life responsibilities, some need someone to help them fix their lives, some need someone to tell them exactly what to do and when.
Hrmph.
Poor domly guys, all saddled with irresponsible, broken, directionless adults because that's what you MUST put up with if you want to be True... S-type ladies, don't do this to a guy. It's not fair to expect someone else to have to handle your shit for you.

No matter what you need as a submissive, a true Dom will step up and do what needs to be done, because that’s what a Dom should do.
No. A dom will do what a dom has agreed to do for his partner. And sure, a lot of partners will go above and beyond for someone they care about no matter what their label- But it's not something to expect all the time, no matter what. Especially if that's not what the D-type partner has consented to. There is no "should" when it comes to what happens in relationships.

When entering into a Dom/sub relationship, the Dom should be assessing what your needs are as a submissive. This assessment helps him determine if he is able to give you what you need and if you are willing to give him what he needs.
Ok, I can't actually find fault with this line of reasoning, except as it applies to everything else above.

No matter how you look at it, submissive people are broken, and before anyone jumps on their soap box I will say this is not a bad thing.
*Trots out high horse, soap boxes are for wussies*
Bullshit, uninformed blog writer with an extremely skewed and unflattering view of submissives.

Submissives are broken because they can’t function to the best of their ability without a Dom.
Oh, FFS!
This line of tripe again... Some PEOPLE have a hard time functioning at full capacity without someone else there to back them up. This is not a trait shared only by those who identify as submissive, nor is it something only submissives suffer from.

Some cannot handle the responsibility of Money management or bill paying, so they are always broke or in a really bad place financially. Some cannot seem to manage their time properly, some are overly selfish and cannot be responsible in doing what needs to be done and not what they want to do for their own selfish needs. Some abuse alcohol or drugs to escape their troubles in life which just causes more issues in their life, a never ending cycle. Some don’t take the risks they need to in order to succeed, and some just sit on the sidelines and just watch life pass them by.
D-types suffer from these as well.
Some s-types manage their relationship's finances as a service because they're better with money than their dominant partner.
Some s-types act as their dom's executive assistant, planning his day, reminding him of appointments, ensuring he's on time.
Some dominants are pretty selfish people- Or have you just not been on Fetlife any time in the past 6 years?
Some dominants have addiction issues or use other forms of escapism.
Some are life's wall flowers.
Nothing in this paragraph of stupid is a trait that afflicts only submissives. These are problems anybody can have, no matter what their label.

In short, the submissive is not living up to her full potential and sadly never will because she does not have the ability to make the changes she needs to make (otherwise she wouldn’t be in this position in her life).
Again, you're taking problems any person can have and saying that they only afflict one specific segment of the population- Complete and utter BS.


A submissive needs someone to do this for her, to take control of these “problems” in her life and do what needs to be done to help fix the issues. This is where the Dom steps in … the true Dom will be able to recognize the issues and build a plan in order to resolve them. When I say resolve, do not take that as a definition for “fix permanently”, because it rarely happens. A submissive is “broken” for a reason, it is not something that can be fixed with 2 months or years of work.
What I mean by “fixing” the issue is the Dom is the fix, his control is the fix. If you have issues paying your bills on time or are always too broke to function in life, the Dom steps in and controls that. For example, if you are always spending your money buying everything you want but know you can’t afford, the Dom steps in and puts a stop to that. The Dom gives you an allowance or a set budget, the Dom approves or denies your every purchase. The Dom steps up and helps you stay in control, the Dom is essentially the “fix” for your problem. Even after time, if you remove the Dom, the sub will usually revert (in some form) back to the way things were because the “fix” for the issue is no longer there, the control.
A) No. If a person has these issues they need to pull on their grown-up undies and sort their own shit out.
B) Expecting someone to fix your shit for you is immature and selfish in the extreme.
C) Nobody is obligated to carry the burden of another person's problems unless they choose to.
D) Dominants are not obligated to do any of this without first consenting to it, especially if they have no interest in a partner who is a "fixer-upper."

No two subs are the same so there is no one way to fix everything but the true Dom will be able to figure out a plan and implement it no matter what the issues are.
Unless he has no interest in that. Not all dominants want to take responsibility for a grown adult who should be taking responsibility for their own lives and problems. Someone who is unwilling to shoulder that burden is no less true than someone who is.

The Dom will become the submissive’s control point, the control she needs in order to grow and live up to her full potential. What it all comes down to in the end is Control … the control, the Dom’s control is the fix and this fits in with my other topic of writing about why the Dom needs to be in control of his own life first before ever attempting to control the life of another person.
A Dominant should be everything the submissive needs him to be … in order to help her become everything she can be …
No, no, no.
Adults need to be in control of themselves, period.
If you cannot control yourself, how can you submit?
If you can't control yourself how can you hope to control someone else?
Ugh. This tripe (which is an insult to tripe everywhere) is making my head hurt.

So the submissive should be … everything the Dom wants her to be, to show the appreciation for him being everything she needs him to be …
Why does this feel like Grade A manipulation?

no matter what, Dom/sub is give and take and it has to be in order for it to function properly. A sub should always appreciate and remind herself of everything the Dom is doing for her by being the “fix” for her issues and the Dom should always appreciate that they sub is giving him that control and is offering him what he wants, her ultimate submission.
Oh. Because it is.
In exchange for all that fixing the d-type now gets to expect (and receive) everything his domly little heart could require. And why do I get the feeling that shows of the submissive's appreciation would include doing things on her hard limit list for this guy?

When it’s all said and done, both should be everything the other needs them to be.
No.
When all is said and done, both partner should be exactly what they've agreed to be.
If the dominant partner has not agreed to be his submissive's life coach, therapist, day planner, financial service expert, administrative assistant, teacher, dog walker, father figure... HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE.
Having no interest in being an enabler does not make him untrue, it makes him incompatible with a submissive who is looking for that in her partner. That's it.

Ugh. Who knew you guys had it so rough?
I feel bad for you all.

BTW subs- D/s is NOT therapy. If you have issues you know you need help with? Hire a therapist. Employ a life coach. Don't expect some poor schmuck with a title to fix the issues you're unwilling to fix yourself. Tat's unfair to him and a recipe for relationship disaster for you both.

Your Protocol & The Kinkyverse

I just read an interesting thread about people imposing their relationship protocol on folks not involved in that relationship.

It was interesting for a few reasons-
First was it brought to mind an argument Cookie had with some random s-type who insisted rather vehemently that by using a title on him (despite his polite request that she not) she was being respectful and he should like it (he didn't).
The second reason was that it made me think about relationship protocol in public places like munches or dungeons, or any other location kinky folks may gather.
Finally, it made me think about relationship protocol and how it affects other people.

Cookie and I don't use protocol, at all. We don't have any rules about how I'm supposed to address him, what I'm supposed to do when we're around other kinky folk, how I'm supposed to address other kinky folks... Nothing. I guess it's not our cup of tea. Or mine at least. If we ever actually get off our lazy butts and make it out to anything fancier than a munch he might want that to change- But until then, zip, zilch, zero (also, if you're on Kongregate, Zilch is an amusing dice game. I might be slightly addicted).

Anyways, I suppose that given our lack of protocol there might be something I'm missing here, but while I understand protocol that affects just the people in the relationship- I really don't get rules that apply to people outside the relationship.

Example: The oft encountered "If you want to message me, you must message my Dominant/Owner/Master/Whatnot first."
OK, cool- You guys have that rule... But why do I have to obey it? I'm not part of your relationship, I have not consented to abide by any rules you've set out for me, and honestly... If I want to say, "Hey, that post you wrote in X group was awesome, it made me think," I don't see why I should have to jump through hoops to do that.

Example: Third Person Speak "This slave wants to be friends with you. Will you accept a friend request from this slave? This slave would be thrilled if you wanted to be this slave's friend..."
Um... Ow.
My brain bled a little bit writing that out. And hey, once again- Cool that you want to do third person speak in your relationship... But is it really necessary to do that to people outside your relationship who might not like that kind of thing?

Example: Seriously personal dynamic protocol "Daddy weawy weawy wuvs when I use my wittle girl voice an' says I haves ta use it aww da time when he's awound..."
No. Please tell me that you did not just baby talk me (and yes, this has happened to me. I squicked so hard). It's cool that you all enjoy that in your relationship. Awesome for you. For me? You talking taking this bit of relationship protocol public and using it on me makes me incredibly uncomfortable. It makes me never ever ever want to attend another munch where you might be. It wuins my night.
Fuck.

Your D-type has a rule that you must address other D-types with a title?
What if that other D-type thinks that titles are something intimate and doesn't want a complete stranger using what amounts to a term of endearment in his relationship? Would you want a complete stranger calling you sugar bum? No? What if they insisted? You'd probably get upset and frustrated wouldn't you? So think about how that poor person you've just imposed your protocol on feels.

Ok, point of this being- Protocol can be a great thing in a relationship. In your relationship. But I think that there's a line you don't cross and that line happens when you apply your relationship's protocol to anybody outside your relationship without their consent.

Quite a few people don't enjoy being subjected to the rules of another person's relationship. They don't like being told "You must put up with this because my D-type says so." It rubs them the wrong way. An easy fix is to explain to the other person what your protocol is and ask them if it's OK if you follow that protocol when interacting with them. Discuss a Plan B before hand with your D-type in case that person does not want to play along by your relationship's rules.

"My protocol is to address D-types with a title/ my D-type likes me to employ a certain mannerism of speech/ my D-type wants me to behave in this particular way, is that OK with you?" gives the person you're asking a choice. It allows them the opportunity to inform you of their preferences and for you to respond in a way that will avoid negative feelings if they don't like (or are squicked by) your personal protocol.


Gah. As always: YMMV. IMHO only.
Guess I'm just thinking about this and working out some nervous energy because Cookie mentioned something about becoming more involved with the local folks. Also: Totally being passive-aggressive with the baby talk thing. I'm still all yucked out about that.

*squick*

Slaves Can't Say No.

Being a painfully literal person sucks sometimes.
Like when I'm involved in a discussion about the differences between a submissive and a slave (BTW, I think the only quantifiable difference is the amount of letters it takes to spell each word), and someone comes along and says, "Well, a slave can't say no."

And then my brain, who is a great big jerk, gets this mental image of someone desperately trying to form the word "no" and speak it, but it's just not working for them.

"Nnnnn... NNNNnnnnn! Nuh, nuh, Nuuuuuuuh... Oh, fuck it."

Plus, there's that super twitchy feeling I get when people lay down gross generalizations and inaccurate information like it's the holy gospel of kinky truth. Just thinking about it is making my right eyelid spasm.

*twitch, twitch, twitch*

Slaves, like most people capable of speaking words out loud can say no just as well as anybody else, and for those who can't actually speak- Well, I figure that sign language would work just as well. Unless maybe they're tied up. Or wearing mittens. Mittens might interfere with that sort of thing...

Anyways, back to the point (if I have one. I might not. I'm out of diet Dew and have had to settle for a vastly inferior diet Pepsi this morning. It's just not cutting it).

Slaves can say no.
They're just as able of saying no as a over-tired toddler faced with an unwanted nap.

Whether they choose to use that word or not in their own personal relationship dynamic- That is an entirely different story.

And! I think it's one worth mentioning because as a blanket statement, the idea that if someone identifies as a slave means that they are never able to say no to something... It's an idea that can get new people into a world of hurt (and not the fun, kinky kind of hurt). When you tell a newbie who wants to identify as a slave that "a slave can't say no" you're creating a paradigm that allows for the potential of really bad shit to happen. Hell, even just mildly bad shit which could just result in an experience that would demolish any interest they might have had in WIITWD.

When you say "A slave can't say no" to a newbie, they don't understand that the lack of "no" in that relationship is the product of (hopefully) a great deal of negotiation over limits and boundaries and a massive amount of trust between a slave and her master that has been established over time. And even then, even if "no" has been negotiated out of the relationship, there are probably instances where it could still be used. The nuances are lost on that new person because odds are really good their only experience of BDSM to that point is crappy erotica and porn.

What they hear instead is literally what you're saying, that they can't say no. Ever. No matter what.

Then, the predatory or uninformed D-types come along and reinforce that idea with their manipulative "Good S-types Don't" drivel, they read the incredibly stupid lists dictating what Real & True s-types do, and common sense takes a flying leap out the nearest window.

Slaves can say "no".

I would strongly encourage anybody who identifies as a slave to refrain from giving up the ability to say no in their relationship until you know someone so well that there is no doubt in your mind that they would ever tell you to do something you would need to say no to.

That's the distinction left out in the generalization- People who say that they can't say no to their master are not saying that they're incapable of speaking the word, they're saying that the relationship they've built has such a solid foundation of trust that they don't need to say no.

They're saying that they've either negotiated "no" out of the equation by agreeing to a consensual non-consent (CNC) dynamic OR that there's no way in hell their partner would ever demand something of them that they would have to refuse. They know their partner well enough to know that he would never order them to cut off their arm or kill a dog or any of the horrible things that would elicit the use of "no." They are certain that their partner knows them well enough that he knows what orders would require a "no" answer, and he doesn't demand those things.

That kind of relationship isn't something that happens in a few messages over Skype or whatever kinky website you're using. Those are things that are established slowly, over time. Lots and lots of time.

So hang on to your "no" until you've built a relationship where you won't need to use it.

And feel free to use it on any nitwit who tries to tell you right off the bat that you can't tell him no. He deserves it... That, and a swift kick in the ass.

Another Internet How-To List...

I like reposting (and adding to) things I find on the internet.
Why? Because sometimes it's horrid advice that I'm sharing and I point out why it's horrid, and sometimes it's sound advice that I like to expand on to provide multiple perspectives in one place. This is case of the latter- Pretty decent advice with additional commentary.


1. YOU are in charge of your own safety and happiness.
Although this is a power-exchange type of world, you do not give up your rights as a human being (unless that’s something you have negotiated) and ultimately the choice to remain in an unsafe or miserable situation is your own.
I actually prefer "Authority Exchange" as I feel it's more accurate, but beyond that- Hooray for someone else espousing personal responsibility! It is your job to keep yourself safe- Not mine, or your friend's or the community (whoever they are), or your partner's... YOURS.

Use safe words, use safe calls, call upon friends who you can trust. Consent does matter, but you can always withdraw consent.
Hey, wait... What happened to personal responsibility?
Safe words are great when they work, but they only work when your partner respects them.
And safe calls are just a starting point for the cops to come looking for your body... They don't actually keep you safe.

2. Dominants are not mind readers- in fact they rather suck at it, so be sure that you are stating your needs and your desires clearly.
Do not expect to get what you want or need if you’re not willing to open your mouth and ask for it. Always be willing to open up the line of communication BEFORE play and ASK or DISCUSS it.
Brilliant!
Too bad more folks can't seem to grasp this simple concept (nobody's a mind reader!), there would be a lot more fulfilling, happy relationships.

3. Know what you like.
Nothing is more frustrating than a dominant asking “what are you interested in” and getting a blank stare and an “ummm” in response.
Know what you like and what you don’t like. If you don’t know, figure it out. Attend an event where they do “tasters” of various kinks, contact a dominant you trust to show you things, or just plain ask. You need to know what you like or you are not going to be very happy and content with yourself or your dominant.
Additionally, merely thinking about different activities can help this process along. Do you think about it and squick? Then you might not want to try that activity. Does it sound interesting? Then you can probably move it to the "might want to try" column of your mental list. Then, think about them some more... is this something you would really like to try, or is it something that you'd just be happy fantasizing about?

4. Not every “top” or “dominant” or big letter person is trustworthy.
Just because they carry a big whip and wear a fancy hat doesn’t mean that you can trust them. Get references, listen to others, and trust your instincts. If something feels wrong or like a “red flag” trust yourself. You were given an instinct to protect yourself USE IT.
True that.
But references? One thing to keep in mind is the fact that nobody is going to have you contact a person who will give them a bad reference. Think about it- When you apply to a new job who do you have your prospective employer contact? People who will give you a glowing reference, or folks who will tell your prospective boss that you pick your nose while driving, punt kittens, and have been known to drink out of the milk carton?

5. Don’t top from below.
If you decide you are submissive, be the submissive- don’t try to weasel your way into being the de-facto top or to always get your way. It really does get to be all about the top. If you can’t handle that, maybe you are on the wrong end of the dynamic.
Errr... Actually, it's not always "all about the top."
If your needs are not being met and you're voicing a reasonable concern- That's honest communication. Anybody who tries to shut down honest communication with a TFTB accusation is a weenie.
And some (rare) D-types enjoy some difficulty...
To each their own.

6. Bottoming to someone is not the same as submitting to them forever.
Just because someone plays with you or allows you to serve them doesn’t mean that you belong to them. It might lead to something more, it might not. Don’t be a stalker about it!
That.
I don't know how many times I've seen some New & Excited Baby Seal announce to the world that "her new Dom..." when they're just play partners and there is no D/s dynamic, just sexy fun time T/b play. Don't be that person. It's not attractive. It's like going on one date and referring to the guy as your fiancé... Creepy.

7. If you agree to rules, procedures, responsibilities, etc, do not constantly renegotiate.
Agree to only what you are willing to do and then do that. If you can’t handle the agreement to begin with, don’t agree to it!
To be fair, sometimes renegotiating things often in the begining is good for the relationship to ensure that both or all parties get what they desire because really, few of us get it right, right away. It takes some trial and error.

8. Be honest about who you are.
Are you poly? Monogamous? Bi-sexual? HIV-positive? Got Herpes? Grow a spine and be honest about it. Don’t enter into a relationship trying to be something you are not. You’ll only end up miserable and hurting people. This goes back to knowing yourself and what you want or would like to try.
No argument there.

9. Don’t’ be afraid to say no!
Don’t be afraid to safe word. Don’t be afraid to withdraw consent.
Just don’t expect things to be all happy and wonderful and perfect after you do so. Saying no, safewording and withdrawing consent should be the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one. And if you aren’t willing to discuss it with the person directly, you sure as heck shouldn’t broadcast it publicly.
Again, no argument.
And I like that the author points out that saying "no" can have consequences.

10. Don’t compare yourself to others. 
Someone is always going to be more “slavey”, be able to take more pain, be more service oriented, be more accomplished, know more, or whatever. Deal with it. You are you and whoever you submit to should like you for YOU not for who they think you should be. If you can’t stand to be who you are and accept it and keep trying to play up to someone’s standards that aren’t yours then you will be miserable.
Word to your mother, yo.


11. Ask questions. Seriously ask people.
If you don’t know about something- ASK. If you want to know about a certain toy or type of play ASK (but not during a scene this is why you negotiate and communicate and talk and discuss it ahead of time). If you want someone to explain protocol to you, ASK. Attend classes, go to workshops, find a mentor, but please, ask questions. “No one ever told me” is a terrible excuse when there are a wealth of people willing to explain things if you’d just ask.
YES!
It frustrates me to no end when people act as if they have any excuse for ignorance when the internet if chock full of people willing to offer GREAT advice via forums, blogs, books, hell there's even BDSM advice on YouTube!

12. Sometimes submission sucks.
It sucks to put everyone else first and see to their needs before your own, but that’s part of the deal. Find a way to make yourself a priority every now and again to feed your own soul, but know that at the end of the day, the dominant is going to come first. It isn’t all rainbows and flowers with floggers and ball gags. There are days you will question your sanity in agreeing to live this way.
Well... Some of us don't put "everybody" first. Our D-types, probably most of the time, but not everybody, not by a long shot.
And, there are quite a few of us who have no desire to do something that's going to suck. Suck is not part of our relationship vocabulary (well, it might be, but not in reference to being miserable), altruism is not our cuppa, and we have no interest in being martyrs.
It's up to you to decide if you can live that way or if you need a partner who's going to make your needs and wants a priority.

13. You don’t have to like something in order to do it.
Sometimes it’s ok to do something you don’t like in order to please someone else, Just be honest about it. If you are taking the cane because you know it makes the dominant happy, be honest about that. It’s ok!
And you don't have to do something you dislike.
It may be a deal breaker for the other person if you don't, and you might have to chalk it up to incompatibility, but it's not a universal prerequisite of submission that you MUST do shit you don't like.

14. Perfection is not required.* You WILL fuck this up numerous times.
You will get yelled at, dressed down, ignored, put aside, punished and possibly even dismissed. You WILL forget something major, something minor or some rule. You will screw this up. Instead of worrying about every little potential mistake, do the best you can with what you have at all times. No one can fault you if you are trying your best. Especially not yourself.
OK, I'm having trouble with this one because some of us do not believe in punishment dynamics. We think "yelling" is counterproductive, ignoring is passive-aggressive BS, and dismissal for screwing up? Seriously? If someone is going to bail because you're not perfect from the get-go, let them. All three of those things (yelling, ignoring, dismissing) are childish, immature, and hallmarks of someone who cannot control themselves, much less a submissive partner.

15. Don’t trust a pretty smile, a big whip, or a big dick.
Just because someone looks the part of a “perfect dominant” doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. Clothes and toys don’t make a dominant effective. Having a whip in the bag doesn’t mean they know how to use it properly. Don’t trust appearances only, there’s always more than just what’s on the surface. There is much more to the book then it’s cover. Always know that!
BOOYAH!
D-types are just people!
Some people are trustworthy, some people are not, and someone giving themselves a title does not change that fact.

16. Don’t play with someone you’ve never seen play unless someone you trust has seen them play.You have no idea what you are getting into and you might be signing on for something that is not comfortable and could be potentially very dangerous to you! There are abusers, serial killers and manipulating people in this world so PLAY SAFE!
In all seriousness, this is a wee bit unrealistic because the majority of kinky folks? We don't play in public. We play at home. So how, exactly, are you going to watch those people play? And if they're private players your friend isn't likely to have seen them go at it... Also: See the "references" thing above.
This isn't rocket science.
If you don't know someone and you don't feel safe playing with them when you don't know them?
Wait until you know them. Problem solved.

Where I go on a ranty bender about responsibility, presonal responsibility, and consent.

You might not be ready to take on being a dominant/top if you cannot own the responsibility that comes with your privilege.
Fair enough, but what responsibility is that exactly? Isn't that something to be determined by all parties involved in a scene or relationship? I mean, not everybody wants to assume the same amount of responsibility for another person, right? I know that Cookie certainly wouldn't want to have 100% responsibility for my actions or feelings or whatever.

And privilege? Seriously? It's a relationship between two (or more) people that requires work on all their parts. Hopefully BOTH parties feel that it's a privilege to be in a relationship with the other person.

There is something very evil about a person who violates the consent of a bottom. It isn’t right to violate anyone’s consent, of course. Ever. But there is something much more callous, sick, and cowardly about violating a bottom’s consent, and here is why:
Erm... NO.
Violating someone's consent or trust is pretty much all around, equally horrible.
You want to talk about evil? Let's talk about the people who abuse the small helpless things entrusted to their care. Abusing something helpless is about as evil as it gets.

When a parent abuses a child, it is never the child’s fault
Now, I am not saying that BDSM is like the parent/child dynamic in all ways. Nor am I saying that bottoms are like children. However, the reason why it is never the child’s fault when a parent abuses or neglects the child is because the parent has taken on responsibility for the child’s life, and the child is in a vulnerable and delicate place.
Like this, in a scene, a bottom has trusted you to take care of them -- for a short while. Or for the duration of a relationship, if you have an on-going D/s dynamic.
Um, what?
You're equating consent violations (all of them, even the accidental sorts) with child abuse? This is starting to reek of a strawman argument. It's quite hyperbolic.
There is a world of difference between a child, who really is a helpless being and an adult person who ought to be able to take responsibility for their own well-being and safety. And who, by the by, is capable of leaving. A kid can't just up and go when they feel unsafe, and adult can.

Sex/play is a vulnerable situation to begin with. Compound that with taking the bottom role, and the bottom is in a place of needing a top who can step up to the responsibility. A relationship requires placing a lot of trust in someone, but a D/s relationship requires even more trust.
Poppycock.
BDSM requires no more trust than any other relationship. Do you trust your vanilla partner not to harm you? There you go. Same level of trust, right there.

When in bondage, a bottom does not have an ability to fight back physically (or it is very hampered, depending how secure your bondage is).
And this is why safe words, safe signals, or plain English communication of a problem are vital. If someone cannot safe word, safe signal, or use plain English to communicate that they are in trouble they should NOT be playing unless the top or dominant has been made aware of these issues and has specifically consented to the extra responsibility these issues will require.

Also- If you're concerned about needing to be able to fight back because you're not sure you'll be safe? Don't play with that person.

 During a pain play scene, your bottom is trusting you to hurt them but do no harm, to know what you are doing, to not use the pain and endorphins raised to take advantage or manipulate. During a D/s (power exchange) dynamic, even if it is only for a few hours, your bottom is trusting you to make the best decisions for them and to be able to follow your instructions.
And none of that means that they are suddenly rendered incapable of making wise decisions or taking responsibility for their own well being.
Also- Trusting someone else to make sound decisions does not equal abdicating responsibility for your own well being. Trust all you want, but when things go south you NEED to be able to stop play or end the relationship or at the very least have a conversation about any concern you may have.

For this reason, and this reason only, it is the top’s job to own 100% of the responsibility of the scene, always.
Bullshit.
It is NEVER anybody else's responsibility to care more for your own safety than you do. EVER.
That's about as stupid as saying "Sure, go swerve all over the highway at 80 miles an hour- Everybody else should be looking out for you so don't worry about looking out for yourself."
Gah!

Now, that doesn’t mean the bottom can’t step up and choose to own some of the responsibility themselves. And it’s wonderful when they do. But if the bottom cannot, or will not, the top must be willing to do so.
Again, bullshit.
If the bottom cannot or will not take responsibility for their own safety the top always has the ability to not consent to play with that person, because that person is a danger to themselves and others.

Like, it’s wonderful IF a young child is capable to make lunch or dinner a few times per week, but if the child can’t do that then the parent can’t let them go hungry those days. It’s wonderful if a young child can clean their own bedroom, but if they aren’t very good at it or don’t know how, the parent can’t go “wellp that’s YOUR bedroom” and leave rotting food and piles of junk everywhere.
The difference between a child and a responsible adult? An adult IS responsible for their own actions or lack thereof, there is no "if" here. By the time you're playing grown-up games, IF you can't act like a grown-up, DONT PLAY. It's pretty simple.

As the top, you must do your best to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with a scene and to own any mistakes you make.
And a bottom should be thinking about these things as well, what with them being an adult and all.

 Additionally, it is at the sole discretion of the bottom to decide when their limits have been violated. The bottom is the one who sets the limits in play, and therefore, they are the only one who can judge when they have been trespassed.
Are we talking about intentional "I said X was a limit and they did X anyways" malicious consent violations?
Or are we talking about "I said X was ok but then I felt icky"
Or "I said X was a limit, but they forgot and did X"
Or "We didn't talk about X, they didn't know it was a limit and neither did I, but X happened and I feel icky"
Consent violations are one thing, accidents, miscommunication, bad luck, unexpected triggers, etc are a whole different kettle of fish- It might have been a good idea to point that out. Not every icky feeling, accident, of miscommunication is a consent violation

If a bottom tells you their limits have been violated, that doesn’t mean you have done anything intentionally, but that does not negate your responsibility in the situation.
Erm... If it's unintentional, where' the responsibility beyond saying "I'm sorry you feel that way"?

 You must own this, like anything else that goes wrong in your scene. You must say, “Thank you so much for telling me. What do you want me to do, now? Do you need space, or want me to be involved in your recovery process? Do you feel comfortable to tell me how I should have handled things better?”
OR, much more logically you say, "I'm sorry you feel that way. What can you do and what can I do to ensure that this does not happen again?" Because assuming the responsibility for the bottom's feelings will not actually solve the problem, asking the bottom if there is something that they can do to actively help themselves will have far more value than encouraging them to continue to abdicate responsibility for their feelings.

You will feel like shit, by the way. You will feel like you just kicked a puppy. Your heart will sink and you will feel like defending yourself. You have to control these immature responses, though, and remind yourself: I am the top. It is my job to own this, and do what I need to fix this. I am lucky that my bottom trusted me enough to tell me what I did wrong, so I have an opportunity to fix it and improve myself.
And where's the bottom's responsibility? If they did something to contribute to the fuck-up (like not safe word, or agree to something they were unsure of, or having a bad reaction to something they previously enjoyed, etc), how does it help them to assume all of the responsibility for their feelings?
It doesn't.

Maybe you did not mean to do it, but that does not absolve you of your duties. Intention means nothing, nothing at all. If you accidentally step over someone’s boundaries due to ignorance, negligence, or forgetfulness, you still have done harm to that person and you have an obligation to acknowledge that.
To acknowledge it? Yes.
To take responsibility for it no matter what the circumstances? No.

If you cannot do this -- if you cannot handle the responsibility of being a top, do not top.
If you cannot do this-- if you cannot take responsibility for your own well being and safety as a bottom, DO NOT bottom.

*********************************************************************************

And I'm sorry folks, but Every time one of these "Hey s-types and bottoms, it's perfectly A-OK for you to not take any responsibility for your role in a scene that accidentally went bad because the d-type should always be more responsible for your safety than you are" posts, it annoys the ever loving fuck out of me. I get all RAWR and ranty.

Even a submissive could...

In a recent thread on Fet about the best way for a D-type to approach a prospective partner (which was actually a pretty good thread and I'll include a link at the bottom) this little gem popped up:

"They just assumed that I must be a sub, most likely because I'm female, and started giving me orders. Even a submissive would see that behavior as rude."

And the Submissive Stereotype strikes again.

Thankfully, another member of that particular group took exception to that last sentence and responded to point out how insulting and condescending it was, which saved me from a potential ban hammering- But I've been thinking about it for a few days and wondering why it is that some folks seem to think we're incapable of recognizing what is and is not acceptable social behavior from our peers.

I mean most of us operate in the real world (AKA Meat Space). We walk on its streets, go to work there, visit friends and family, attend social gatherings... We know how to behave and what behavior is Ok from other people. A great many of us learn about that stuff from the time we're little and our folks start saying things like "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." We all know how to treat other people and how other people should treat us.

So why does this belief exist that submissives are so clueless that it would take a rather stunning display of ill manners to "get it"?

And I thought and I thought and then I felt like an idiot because the answer was so blatantly obvious and staring me in the face all along...

You just have to look at K&P on Fet to see where this belief comes from.

Or you just have to click on any picture of a pretty submissive female with a body that masses generally find attractive to see it- The rudeness, the lack of manners, the failure to abide by even the laxest social mores... And the positive responses from the pictured submissive that these ill words garner, or the lack of response to the ill words. And the lack of D-types standing up to inform the inept ones that, no, this isn't the way to treat someone who hasn't consented to that behavior.

The actions, or lack of action, of some submissives and dominants (not all, a good many of us don't have any problem pointing out when a D-type is using his title for an excuse to be a jackass) contribute to the stereotype. We as a group have created this paradigm, by not saying to the jackasses, "If you wouldn't say that to your best friend's sister, you shouldn't be saying it to me." (or something along those lines)

Too many of us don't stand up for ourselves or each other, and when we do we get an earful (or screen full as the case may be) of how "untrue" we are, because (obviously) submissives are supposed to put up with any filth that some random stranger decides to spew in their general direction. Submissives like that shit. And dominants can say whatever the hell they want to any random person because DOMINANT.

Sigh.

It's a nasty cycle that too many people contribute to and too few try to stop- More of us (on BOTH sides of the slash) could do something about it if we made an effort.

Even a submissive can see that.

Dumping a D-type: Specific Rules & Regulations

It's an age-old story (or one that's just as old as the internet)-

Sub meets Dom.
Sub and Dom make an attachment.
Sub and Dom play and figure out they're just not compatible (or he's an ass, or she's an ass, or...)
Point is, someone wants out.
Wants to call it quits, the end, finis.

Thanks to poorly written erotica, fantasy-based play, and a whole shit-ton of stupid on the internet and in the community, some folks get the idea that a person (most often the s-type) can't just say "Hey, this isn't working for me. I think it's time to move on" and go.

Nope.

Folks had to complicate the hell out of something most of us have been doing since high school.

Why? Probably because it plays into the fantasy of D/s or M/s, that the s-type can't just end a relationship because she (or he) belongs to the D-type. Someone who's owned can't just cut and run like they could in a vanilla relationship.

And really? I don't care. If two or more folks want to abide by arbitrary rules developed by Dog Only Knows Who, apply them to their relationship or the ending of their relationship... More power to them, you know? Whatever floats their kinky little boats.

I do start to care, however, when these arbitrary rules get quoted to someone who wants out or perhaps needs to be out and puts their emotional or physical well-being in danger.

A few years ago I saw a post about a woman who was in an obviously abusive relationship and was wondering if she could leave the ass who was harming her. Sadly, I've seen quite a few of those so it wasn't as disturbing as it should be. What was disturbing was a woman who came along and started quoting The One True And Real Way's Guide To Disolving A BDSM Relationship.

She said that the submissive couldn't just leave, because she was "owned" and all.
She said that the submissive would have to beg to be released, and if she wasn't released- Well, too bad so sad.
She said it was up to the D-type (abuser) to decide if he wanted to let the submissive go.

Understandably, that response cause a shit-storm in the group and that member (and her misguided "helpful" advice were never heard from again). Which would be great if there wasn't always someone else willing to "helpfully" offer similar advice whenever a submissive asks how to end a relationship with her Domly Partner...

Hence this bloggy thing.

The fantasy is fun. It can really help set the mood, get you and your partner in the right mindset, and can contribute positively to the relationship-  While the relationship is still worth having.

Once you're done with the relationship though, for whatever reason? The fantasy needs to end as well, and despite what The One True And Real Guide may say about the matter- Ending the relationship is as easy as saying "It's over."

If you want to go through the rigmarole of "begging For Release" because you think it might provide some closure, that's your call. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

If you want to wait for your partner to say, "OK, I agree, it's over" because you think it might provide them with some closure, also your call. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

There are no rules and regulations about breaking up in a BDSM type of relationship unless YOU WANT TO USE THEM.

And if you do use them but the D-type says that they won't release you? It doesn't matter. You can still go on your merry way for a few reasons:
A) Slavery is illegal in the USA and a great many other nations.
B) Holding someone against their will is illegal in the USA and a great many other nations.
C) Forcing someone to participate in sexual activities they don't consent to is illegal in the USA and a great many other nations.

So unless they want to face court time and jail time... There's not a fat lot that a D-type can do to make you remain in a relationship you no longer consent to being in, other than breaking a few laws and paying for it eventually.

Reality (and the legal system system) trump fantasy every time.



As usual, YMMV. My opinion only. Do what works for you as long as it works for you.

50 Shades of Consent (consent violations v3.0)

"If the bottom feels consent was violated, then consent was violated."

That's the atmosphere of consent in the Kinkyverse lately, an all or nothing stance that makes consent violations into a black and white issue- If you feel that your consent was violated, then it was, and there's no room for interpretation. Your feelings are fact.

Now, I really don't want to negate anybody's feelings or cast doubt on their validity. It's not my place to do that because you feel what you feel and I certainly wouldn't want someone to say to me that I didn't have a right to my feelings. That would be pretty shitty. I wanted to point that out before I continued- Casting aspirations on someone else's feeling is not the point of this bloggy thing, at all.

The point is what happens with those feelings, why someone may have them, and what to do about it.

I think that for most people there has been a time when a scene (or plain old vanilla sex) just hasn't gone well. I can distinctly recall a time when my ex husband and I were going at it and all of a sudden it felt a lot more like rape than consensual sex. It felt like I didn't matter and he was just using me, despite the fact that I'd consented to what we were doing before hand... It felt really, really horrible and I had the feeling that somehow I had been violated. My consent had been violated.

I've never mentioned that to anybody before this, and I only bring it up to illustrate a point. I understand how consent violations can happen, even with someone you care for and who cares for you- Which in a way I think makes it worse, because you trust them not to harm you. It's not like playing with someone you just met where you kind of expect that something could go wrong. It comes out of the blue. Just out of nowhere and you're not prepared for it, at all.

So when people write about consent violations and tarring and feathering the guilty party, that one night is what I think of and why I'm so opposed to the idea that because I felt my consent had been violated, it was... Because it wasn't. I may have felt that way, but that did not mean that a violation of my consent was a FACT.

I may have felt that way, but I didn't tell my then-fiancé. I didn't tell him during (I don't know why, if I had he would have stopped and would have understood), I didn't tell him after. He had no reasonable way of knowing that I felt icky.

Consent Violations are not a black and white thing when it comes to consensual kink.
Black and white is saying "NO" or "STOP" or using a safeword/gesture/signal and they keep going.
The rest? It's all shades of grey.

Treating a feeling like a fact doesn't do anybody any favors. It creates a atmosphere of victimhood and Partner Blaming. It negates personal responsibility for your own well-being and places the brunt of that burden on your partner- Even if that partner was doing everything they could to keep you safe.

So what do you do when the grey area of consent violations happens?

Personally, I think it's important to look at the "why."
As in: Why did it happen?

There's always a why.
Perhaps limits were not expressed clearly enough.
Perhaps negotiations were a bit hurried in the excitement to get to the good stuff.
Perhaps there was a failure to communicate during play.
Perhaps a trigger was tripped that you didn't know about until it happened.
Perhaps it was something totally unforeseen, irrational, and it might not happen again in a million years...

But finding that why is (to me) the most important thing you can do for yourself and your partner. It can help put feelings into a problem solving context (Yes, I feel bad, but now I know how to avoid this feeling in the future) where finding a solution goes a long way in helping manage those feelings. Instead of being the helpless "victim" of  a kinky snafu you are an active participant, which is kind of empowering.

Looking for the why is also extremely important for communication. If something bad has happened and you know (or have an idea) of why it happened, that will lead to a much more productive conversation with your partner.

"I feel my consent was violated" is really rather vague and odds are good, as seriously as consent is taken in the Kinkyverse, it's going to put your partner on the defensive or leave them feeling guilty for something that may not have been able to prevent or foresee. It's not constructive.

"I feel my consent was violated because X, I would like your help to keep it from happening again. What can we do?" gives them the chance to help solve the issue and become an active participant as well. It doesn't cast blame, it's just a feeling and a request for their help in finding a resolution.

I do not think it's at all beneficial to take that feeling and use it as a finger-pointing blame tool. It may feel good for a while to tell everybody within earshot or on your friend list that So-and-so violated your consent... But there's a good chance that will come around to bite you in the ass, especially if there was something you could have done to prevent things from having gone wrong in a consensual scene, but didn't.

"So-and-so violated my consent! I feel violated! He beat me with a rubber chicken!" is going to sound a bit like you can't take responsibility for yourself when So-and-so responds, "MissX never used her safeword or told me something was wrong during the scene. How can anybody trust her to be a responsible bottom if she can't communicate?"

Yeah. Not so good. Probably a better bet to talk to the Top Type first before starting a witch hunt.

Anyways, I fear I've gone off on a tangent. I was talking about consent violations and how feeling violated doesn't equate to being violated... It's an important distinction to make and figure out when it happens, and the only way to figure it out is to look at what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening in the future.

I think more conversations need to recognize that while a person's feelings may have been violated, that doesn't always mean that the other party willfully and knowingly violated consent and that there has to be an immediate witch hunt or public burning at the stake. fact and feeling are not the same thing, and treating them as if they are is a horrible thing. Feelings can be validated without blame being cast, and communication with the other party involved should happen before that person is cast as the villain.


As always, YMMV.
But seriously, this a conversation more people need to be having because there is an element of personal responsibility that is not being taken into account when someone who feels like their consent has been violated is cast as an automatic victim... Partner Blaming is just as bad as Victim Blaming. 

Consent Violations in BDSM v2.0

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Someone made a helpful list (that I eviscerated. My bad).

I like to keep up on what other people are writing about. Partly because I like getting those little glimpses into another person's head and partly because it's a good idea to know what drivel is being spewed because that shit needs to be nipped in the bud.

So this morning I hit up Google to see what's happening in the Kinkyverse. This is what I found, bold is that writer's ideology, not bold is me. Snarking. A lot. Sorry, I tried to restrain myself (well, I didn't try very hard), but a person with common sense can only take so much of this One True Way stuff before they lose their patience.

Today I will be sharing the protocols normally reserved for 24/7 submissives and slaves.
Ooo... There are protocols normally reserved for 24/7 dynamics? Do tell!

Some of these will be fairly standard and have been taken from erotic fiction but some of these are very unique to the owner and should show you that deciding what the rules and protocols are should be the owner's decision.
Your use of  "taken from erotic fiction" worries me because, yanno, fiction. Plus it's doubly worrisome that you're implying that rules are set only at the D-type's discretion... Have you not heard of negotiating?

I will be breaking up the requirements in different categories and in some instances, when something is clear I will not even use further explanation. It is my hope that this guide will help you enhance your submissive or slave's service to you.
I can barely contain my anticipatory glee.

In private/ At home with no one else present:

Slave should always remove clothing as soon as she/he gets home unless Master/ Mistress has laid out clothing for the slave or submissive to wear.
Always? As in without exception? You do realize that many of us have children, live in cold climates, or just don't do that sort of thing, right?

Slave should fold clothes neatly or place them in the laundry whenever he/ she gets undressed. Ok. I can't take exception to this one, dirty clothes strewn about the house is one of my pet peeves.
 
The slave or submissive is to kneel in present posture whenever the Master/ Mistress is due to arrive and wait quietly.
I have no idea what this is, but I do know that being naked and kneeling around here is going to result in some uncomfortable adventures in warding off curious dogs and their wet noses... How about I remain clothed and just sit on the couch?

Whenever the Master/ Mistress is present in a room, the slave must ask permission to enter in the following fashion: "Would it please you if your slave entered the room."
I can already hear Cookie laughing. In part because he would find this silly, but mostly because he would be amused that you're dictating what his submissive must do.

The slave will kneel in the room until the Master/ Mistress gives permission that he or she may move or proceed with cleaning.
Ooo. Cleaning. I'm sure that will be the first thing on his mind if I'm nakkie and kneeling- Having me clean something.

The slave or submissive will wear and gratefully accept any toys the Master/ Mistress chooses to insert or adorn her or him with while cleaning or in any other circumstance.
Cookie hasn't given me any toys! Does this mean he's doing it wrong? Is there a committee or something I can report him to? I'm feeling rather jilted here.

The slave will not speak unless spoken to and may request an opportunity to speak if there is something pressing to discuss during those periods of time when the Master/ Mistress commands silence.
This might work if it wasn't for the fact the he tends to like my nonstop chatter. He thinks I'm amusing, which is good because I think I'm amusing too.

The slave or submissive may request an opportunity to serve the Dominant in the following way: "Would it please you to have your slave serve you?"
Again, thanks for telling someone else's s-type what they "may" do. And, you know, this is just something to think about here- But plenty of D-types don't really enjoy that whole third person slavey-wavy talk thing... Might be a good idea to admit that there's no One True Way sometime soon.

The slave does not sleep with the Master/ Mistress unless it is the express wish of the owner and then this must be seen as a privilege. It can be taken away as a form of punishment.
Like hell it is or can. We're married we sleep together no matter what. Hard limit.
Oh, just in case you forgot: S-types are allowed to have limits.

The slave or submissive will always thank the Master/ Mistress for an opportunity to serve whether it was doing a chore or being flogged.
I actually do this. But it might not count because I'm kind of sarcastic about it... He laughs though, so it's all good.

The slave will keep their eyes averted unless it is the wish of the Master/ Mistress to have their slave look them in the eyes.
There's that absolute thing again... It's getting a bit old and we're not even halfway through this list.

The slave will address the Master/ Mistress not by their first name, but by the title preferred by that dominant.
I call Cookie by his first name. I also call him Dear, Sir Pooksalot, and You Fluffy-headed Manperson. We both fail, it seems.  (also, if you're wondering, a "pooka" is what my eldest twin called poop. He couldn't pronounce poop so it came out sounding like pooka. We think it's funny)

In public/ At home with others present:

A slave will receive visitors at the door with whatever clothing the Master or Mistress commanded.
Or whatever I happen to be wearing at the time. Cookie doesn't dictate my wardrobe, and has no interest in dictating my wardrobe. Funny thing- I actually have more fashion sense than he does so he wears what I lay out for him. I dictate his wardrobe.

A slave will greet visitors in whatever way the Master/ Mistress commands - this may include just taking coats and putting them away, kissing the hand of the guest or kneeling in front of them.
Yeah... No.

A slave will not refer to anyone using his or her first name. A slave will use the title Sir or Ma'am combined with their name to differentiate and to make sure that he or she remembers her or his place.
Again, no. The only person who I would ever think of using a title on is the one person I submit to and have consented to submit to- My Domly One. And my place? It's on equal footing with every other human being on this planet.

A slave will serve every person with food and drinks as requested, kneeling to each as the food or drinks are presented.
Not happening. I have bad knees. Too many years of track.

A slave will not use furniture and will kneel on the floor until her or his services are required.
Like hell I'm not going to use a couch or chair I paid for, and I'm sure as heck not kneeling on the floor with my craptastic knees.

A slave will not speak unless spoken to.
Not our kink, but thanks for telling us it should be.

A slave will remain attentive to make sure that no one has to ask for additional food or drink. A slave should be ready before the command is issued.
If I got off on service this might be fun, but I don't. I'll do what a good hostess would do but if someone other than Cookie commands me to fetch them something they're going to be booted out of my home for being a rude, insufferable twat.

A slave must use high protocol when commanded to do so. This means that the slave will not use first person language when referring to him or herself and will address everyone present with the honorific given to those free.
Oh God.
Seriously, get off Second Life. We're ALL free in case you missed that whole Slavery Being Illegal In The USA thing. And I'll use high protocol when I agree to use it, it's that whole pesky consent thing.

Bathroom training:

A slave must always ask permission before using the bathroom or taking a shower.
Not happening. I don't get off on that, Cookie doesn't want to be pestered every time I need to wee or get clean... really. Please, some time soon point out that you don't have the monopoly on how dynamics ought to run and different people will have varying degrees of interest in the things mentioned here.

The bathroom door may never be closed in private, as a slave has no right to privacy.
Ew. Gross. Seriously not happening. And my shy bladder disagrees with you.

The slave must accept it calmly when the owner decides that a bathroom break will not be allowed at that very moment.
By "calmly"  I'm guessing you don't mean wee on your D-type because I have a good idea that's what would happen if Cookie had the balls to tell me I couldn't use the potty room when I needed to.

Punishment/ Discipline:

Punishment and or discipline take precedence over any other command.
Not part of our dynamic, thanks.

A slave must show gratitude for punishment and or discipline.
Must? Boy, you really like dictating what other people do in their relationships don't you?

A slave must take correction gracefully and maintain a grateful presence around the house after the fact.
And if they haven't consented to it they can file assault charges and show grace and dignity in court.

A slave must confess to disobedience and take responsibility even when the dominant is not present and beg for punishment and or discipline.
Because that sort of thinking worked so well for our parents when we were children, right?  Come on.

A slave must always maintain the punishment position in these cases.
There's a position for that? Is it like bending over or something? How well does that work when the punishment is writing lines or dusting the crown molding near the ceiling?

Sexual Service:
This si where it gets really good. And by "really good" I mean that there is absolutely no nod to the importance of consent when it comes to sexual activity and the rights someone has if someone forces them to have sex against their will- Also known as rape.

The slave must be available for sexual service whenever the dominant or his guests require it.
Or his guests?
Dear reader- I want to point out something here- The fact that the person demanding service of this nature identifies as a D-type does not protect them from rape charges. If you do not consent, they have no right to expect any sexual gratification from you. This is not a "must" it is a kink that requires consent, and it is despicable that it's stated as a must.

The slave must always be ready for any form of sexual service, which would mean that her or his body must be prepared in order to make it easy for the dominant or guests to use him or her.
Some folks enjoy this sort of thing, I enjoy being available to my Domly One... But not always. Being sick, bleeding like a stuck pig, having had a horrid day- Yeah. Those don't really foster a sexy-time feeling. They do however foster a "Get the hell away from me or I'll brain you with this leaded crystal bedside lamp" feeling.

The slave will not be allowed to have an orgasm without permission.
Funny. I'm allowed to have as many orgasms as I want whenever I want. So whose rule do I listen to here? The tripe from a random One True Way blog or my Domly One's dictates?

The slave will shave any body hair and maintain this at all times. Failure to do so will result in punishment.
We don't have a punishment dynamic.

The slave will be clean and pleasant to all the senses at all times.
Does this mean I can't fart? Because that's not very realistic. Sometimes the gas has to pass.

The slave is not allowed to touch her or his owner's property without permission in any sexual way.
Oddly enough, I've never actually felt the need to molest Cookie's car or X Box until this very moment...

These are but a few of the requirements that some slaves live by.
You really should have put more emphasis on SOME because this comes across as a One True Way Manifesto with a weak ass nod to YKINMKATOK. WEAK.

The list is extensive and could be lengthened quite easily.
Because it's not long enough? Sheesh. Plenty of people don't even have rules and regulations at all much less a list like this. Cookie only has one rule. One. He's the Boss. That's it, it's his trump card, his ace in the hole. Man. He'd shit bricks if he thought he had to create, manage, and keep track of all the potential infractions a lengthy list like this could create.

 It is always a good idea to have requirements regarding online privileges and privacy, interaction with others not in the lifestyle, which would include hand signals etc.
No, it's not "always" a good idea. It's a good idea if that idea appeals to the people in a dynamic.

In the end it is the decision of the dominant what this list would include.
Please. Just stop. It is also the decision of the s-type if she wants to consent to the things included in a list like this.

My dominant makes me read my list of requirements daily to ensure that I do not fail in my service to him.
Good for you. My Dominant likes me to write snarky blogs in response to other blogs written by people who don't have the common sense to realize that their verbal outpourings have consequences. He seems to think that I have some responsibility to point out to the new and uninformed that there is no right or wrong way to do this, and the only things they "must" do are those things they agree to do... Too bad more folks don't realize that fact.