In other words, we aren't giving up our right to consent. I think what we are really going for is consensual non-choice. So the minute there is no consent (non consent) it negates the consensual part. Permission given in one place is not permission given in another. Consent is conditional, contextual and revocable. Part of the problem is that for there to truly be consent, certain things have to be present.
However, the more I've learned about what consent really is, I don't think "consensual non-consent" is possible. I thought it was a good descriptor for those (like myself) who wanted to participate in certain power games in the bedroom.
I liked that it described the idea that I could agree to give up consent in the context of a disciplinary or spanking relationship. It's had me thinking about the term "consensual non-consent," which I used to really like. While they weren't talking about spanking or what happens between people in the privacy of their homes, a lot of it transfers. In one of my jobs, I've spent a lot of time interviewing intimacy coaches/directors and talking about boundaries and consent.
0 kommentar(er)
