Saying that this protocol excites me it’s an understatement. This is the only -that I know of- framework that have been conceived by professionals of psychology, sexology and sociology. Is also the only framework with a redacted  whole-ass paper with historical/scientific quotes to give weight to their argument.

4Cs creative minds try to be clear in their point of view and still leave room for personal interpretation and ethical debate. In their introduction they stated:

“In light of this shift [BDSM commonly been assumed to be motivated by an underlying psychopathology to some scholars recognizing that not only is BDSM participation not associated with psychopathology, but that it may be associated with desirable psychological states that are often associated with healthy leisure experience] and in combination with the development of community-based research as a methodological strategy across the social sciences generally, an exciting recent development is the formal collaboration between scholars and communities of people with alternative sexual identities, including BDSM [...] We welcome this development, and it is in the spirit of mutual benefit that we write the present paper. In fact, we are both scholars and also members of the BDSM community. Hopefully, our discussion here will generate insights among both academics and nonacademics”.

As I mentioned previously, most ethical frameworks give us buzzwords, tell us what’s wrong or what’s okay, RACK it’s probably the only one saying straightforward that knowledge and practice it’s the path to a good dynamic; and even though all the frameworks include the word consent, non of them actually tell us what the actual fuck consent is beyond the boundaries of BDSMK. This is a concern I had for many years. Something that led me to look for answers within ethical dissertations [which I do not regret] before finding 4Cs. They tell us about it:

“The notion of consent has almost always been a core consideration at the heart of both popular and more academic discussions of BDSM. Whether utilized as a kind of defense of BDSM or whether simply being beat into the heads (or preferably other body parts) of newbie practitioners, consent has often been thought of as a key element that distinguishes BDSM from violence and other types of abuse. Yet, in spite of this central role of consent—a role that is clearly articulated within the acronyms of both SSC as well as RACK—we suggest that the notion of consent suffers from considerable ambiguity and deserves some much-needed clarity. Although others [in the academic world] have certainly pointed out some of these same ambiguities, we propose that as part of our new acronym of the 4Cs, the BDSM community would do well to strive for a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of consent”.

“[...] one of the complications here is that while perhaps it might be helpful if people said exactly what they wanted—if they were direct, clear, and obvious all the time and in every way—this is just not the nature of reality. While frequent and direct communication is desired, there is always more that is left unsaid. This is especially the case with BDSM, where much of the eroticism and allure of BDSM hinges on blatantly playing with and often purposefully obscuring consent. Whether that’s the explicit specifications of consensual non-consent, or whether it’s the use of even the most minimal type of bondage, or whether it’s merely the top telling the bottom what to do—in all of these scenarios, BDSM is clearly blanketed in the trappings of non-consent. Experienced BDSM practitioners know this, and they know that navigating this tricky edge of consent is the balancing act that brings BDSM alive [...] what exactly is consent and how do I know if my consent has been violated? For example, is consent a verbal agreement? Is it a body posture? A knowing look? A written out contract? In response, then, to these kinds of ambiguities, we suggest that one of the ways to move beyond such questions is to take a step back from the mechanics of consent and instead consider a broader approach. In particular, we propose that BDSM practitioners—both new and experienced alike—might benefit from learning to conceptualize consent according to three distinct levels”.

“The first of these is what we might call surface consent. In many ways, surface consent mirrors the kind of consent that is exemplified in the phrases ‘no means no’ and ‘yes means yes’. When you are at a play party and someone asks you whether you would be interested in participating in some kind of scene, you might answer according to this kind of surface consent: ‘yes, I’m interested’ or ‘no, I’m not’”.

“A second level of consent and probably the level that is most often associated with BDSM might be called scene consent. Here consent entails the top and bottom discussing and negotiating what is going to occur in the scene, and especially how the bottom might communicate to the top that he or she is (in the middle of the scene) withdrawing consent, typically through the use of some kind of safeword or gesture”.

“[...] third and even more ambiguous level of consent, what we might call deep consent. Here we are talking about something beyond just a bottom’s ability to use a safeword or gesture. For instance, when a bottom is crying and sobbing and in obvious distress and perhaps full into some kind of subspace—but hasn’t yet called ‘red’—we might wonder to what extent the scene is affecting the thinking of the bottom and affecting the bottom’s mental capacity to yell out ‘red’ or to engage in cognitive consent at all? In addition, even if the bottom is still able to think, the bottom may not actually know whether he or she is consenting. In such cases, it seems like the question of consent is something that almost has to be considered after the fact. As the bottom plays back the scene in the hours and days and weeks that follow, he or she might come to some kind of conclusion: ‘I consented’ or ‘no I didn’t’ or perhaps ‘I guess I just don’t know’. In addition, it is important to be aware that aftercare and later conversations (especially between the top and bottom) may actually change the bottom’s interpretation of a scene and his or her consequent view of consent.”

“Thus, while acknowledging that more sophisticated philosophical analyses of consent could certainly be provided, we suggest that the basic takeaway here is for BDSM practitioners to recognize and be cognizant of the fact that consent is a messy business. This, of course, is not at all to downplay the significance or importance of consent, or to make light of the potential emotional and psychic costs of having one’s consent violated. Indeed, just as in every relationship people get hurt from time to time, we suspect that there are few BDSM practitioners among us who have not on occasion had our consent violated at least in part. That being said, some of us play on the safe side of consent, and some of us like to dangle over the cliff. Some of us go so far as to secretly long for our consent to be violated mid-scene in the hope that our retrospective analysis will lead us to conclude that at some deeper and more meaningful level, we really did consent. These—for better or worse—are the ambiguities of consent. Instead of denying these ambiguities, we recommend that BDSM practitioners embrace them, talk about them, negotiate with them, and continually and constantly reassess”.

Source: Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality

[From “SSC” and “RACK” to the “4Cs”: Introducing a new Framework for Negotiating BDSM Participation

by D J Williams, PhD; Jeremy N. Thomas, PhD; Emily E. Prior, MA; M. Candace Christensen, PhD]

Yes, I’m very aware that was other long ass quote but given that 4Cs it’s the only ethical framework that gives definitions [or try] thought that we at least can give it a proper reading.