The easiest way to explain consent is saying that it is about a mutual agreement between two or more participants to engage in a specific activity. Sounds simple, right? Well, it should be easy but because some people don’t quite understand the “agree” part, it isn’t.

Let's make this very clear…

I am not open to discuss with no one about if consent should or should not be part of any sexual relationship. Even if I love doing mental gymnastics on any topic and enjoy overthinking and thinking about all the possibilities and ideas present to us, when it comes to consent I am very direct. Consent and sexual activities MUST always go hand in hand. It’s consent what it draws the thin line between abuse and BDSMK activities (sexual and/or otherwise). THAT IS A FUCKING FACT!

Okay, now that we already established that consent it’s non negotiable. Let’s talk about how consent can be achieved. Something that is wrongly [or conveniently] believed is that “lip-service consent” [aka saying “yes”] is all that's needed for making it consensual. Like if never happens someone naively, or stupidly, agreeing to something they obviously can't handle.

Consent within the boundaries of BDSMK implies altering the existing framework of rights, obligations, duties, etc, by authorizing or permitting another party to act in ways that under normal circumstances would not otherwise be permitted, and typically, though not necessarily, entail the consenter assuming the obligation not to resist, or even positively to assist the act in question. However, the consent given must fulfill very specific conditions for it to be valid. And again, these conditions are not negotiable, either you comply with them or that "yes" that you gave or someone gave you is nothing more than mirrors and smoke.

Conditions for Consent to be Valid

1. The consenting party must have sufficient knowledge about what they are consenting to.
2. The consent must be given voluntarily (free of pressure, coercion, manipulation, etc…we shall unfold these)
3. The consenting party must have the average mental competence of a standard adult. Immaturity, intoxication, psychological defects [of various kinds] undermine consent.
4. Consent should never violate the basic rules of human ethics. If by giving consent someone could be injured or irreparably harmed, such consent is not valid.

Again, sounds pretty forward and easy, right? Well, some fuckers want to play but do not want to follow the games rules. There are many variations regarding achieving and keeping consent in place. SSC, CA, IC, PRICK, RACK, CCCC; they all talk about consent, some in a very ambiguous way, others almost out of obligation while others put it as their pilar. No matter what role they give it, everyone knows that people want to hear that their consent matters. While nuances may differ and may be important in specific contexts, the basic concept is the same: everyone involved does not merely give lip-service consent, they should know what they are getting into and are must be capable of decide for themselves what they want and do not want.

Now, how does this look like in real life? Simple, if your partner tells you: "I want us to do X things, are you up for it?", and you instead of playing along [that in tehir head means yes] you ask them "how the dynamic or the scene is going to work? what risks does it implies". They get mad at you for asking such questions and say: if you “really love/trust me” you wouldn’t hesitate. First, they are a dick head and no safe. Secondly, they are undermining the conditions for positive affirmative consent to be given. Consent comes with ethical responsibility and is this responsibility that makes consent the base for any successful BDSMK relationship.

It is important to recognize that BDSMK is very complex. Boundaries can be pushed, convincing/showing your partner that certain activity is safe is part of the process. Power exchange is about one person placing their dominance over another and the other person submitting willfully, allowing the dominance of the other. It is this willful submission that underlies all healthy D/s relationships, and in return for this giving up of control to another person, that person, the Dominant, takes [ethical] responsibility for the restriction, freedom, pain, and pleasure of the submissive. Yes, BDSMK is a strange, and many times, confusing world. How can we know for sure we are keeping our "high moral ground" when we are asking someone to lick the floor and our boots? Even if it can sometimes be confusing, there's a set of golden consent rules to follow to be sure we are keeping everyone involved safe even when the lines are blurry.

With the previous considerations in place, let us look at the necessary conditions for valid consent: KNOWLEDGE, INTENTION, VOLUNTARINESS & COMPETENCE.

Knowledge

This one can be tricky, very often happens that some folks think sufficient knowledge it's only a Dominant’s responsibility. Now, ask yourself: "If I do not have sufficient knowledge about the reasonably expected consequences of the acts I’m about to consent to, is my attempt to consent valid?".

The vast literature on informed consent [in medical ethics] shows how elusive "enough knowledge" in the operative world is. The doctor–patient relation, for example, is normally vastly asymmetrical in terms of knowledge. In comparison, one can't say the consenter–consentee relationship in BDSMK is asymmetric before the dynamic. Is wrong to believe that the consentee has more or better knowledge than the consenter. Of course, things are complicated because the consenter might consent to a broad spectrum of acts. At the time when consent is given, it might be unclear [to both parties] exactly how things are going to look like, and hence, “the normal course of events” is even more clouded by uncertainty than it is in patient–doctor relations. Ignoring that uniqueness, it is still true that there is no reason to expect that there will be a vast asymmetry in knowledge between the parties. There might be a vast asymmetry of power once the dynamic starts, but that's after negotiation [aka the consenting period] and that doesn't necessarily implies an asymmetry of knowledge.

Remember, knowledge is power, even if you are a submissive or bottom you better learn how the fuck things work before you consent to participate in any dynamic/activities. So often people put responsibility on the Dominant/Top side, like if sub/bottoms are these dumb willingness creatures. Remember, a good dynamic depends on both parties. One thing that comes with experience is to intuitively notice the lack of knowledge (from Dom/Top or sub/bottom), which not only diminish or completely annul consent but can represent a danger.

Intention

Consent depends on having genuine will to do so. Don't say yes when you mean no, or when you're unsure about what the heck you want. All of us who study consent know that the main defeaters of genuine intention are coercion, manipulation, and asymmetrical bargaining [they will be unpack later on as part of voluntariness]. But I believe that shame and desire to belong also do their thing. When we want someone to like us it is difficult for us to say no, when we want to appear "cool" we take silly risks that in retrospect make us say: "what the hell was I thinking?!" So, remember, if someone stops seeing how great and cool you are just because you said no, it's better for you to be alone.

Voluntariness

This one is going to be long, but for good reasons. This one forces us to think about, the intention of the consenter might be genuine enough in the sense that lack of intention can't be the reason why consent is undermined, but where the circumstances in which the intention is formed are coercive to an extent where consent is undermined, or the willingness of the consenter isn't genuine enough. That was a mouthful. But don't worry, after reading what comes next you will understand what the hell I meant with it.

When we observe and evaluate consent within BDSMK relationships, we should pay attention to:

1. Whether or not there is a pre-existing asymmetry of power between the parties, which might undermine consent. This is most often found in married couples or relationships where one person is an authority figure; doctor, teacher, therapist, etc.
2. Whether the intention of the consenter is aimed not merely at some result [desired in itself] but also at changing the pre-existing moral framework.
3. The paradigm example of coercion; if I consent to something only because a gun is held to my head. Am I actually giving consent?. . .

Anyone familiar with the literature on coercion knows that it is a complex and puzzling phenomenon, so big that you can find it tangled so tightly into the social, political and economic fabric. A classic way of conceptualizing coercion is to focus on physical threats. And I get it, thinking about it that way makes it easier. There must be some "real" or perceived likelihood of harm involved in coercion to be dangerous, but remember, harm doesn't always take the shape of physical aggression. Threatening to cease interaction, disclosure of information or any kind of non-physical actions can work as an act of aggression too. Imagine a sub who is deeply emotionally involved in their dynamic, so much so that they perceive the relationship with their Dominant as very central for their own wellbeing. The Dominant ends the relationship because the sub refuses to do something. However, after a while, the Dom offers to reinitiate the relationship, but of course asks the sub to agree [consent] to “go a lot further" in aspects which the Dom knows the sub would not agree to in the absence of heavy bargaining power. Now, it seems that the offer in question has a heavy air of coercion to it, doesn't it? Again, we should take care to distinguish between intention and coercive circumstances. The intention might be “genuine enough” but in some cases coercive circumstances might plausibly lead us to question whether consent is “genuine enough”. Coercion is related to exploitation, and this brings into the discussion another important ethical concept, manipulation.

Manipulation is known to undermine consent, for obvious reasons. As always when it comes to ethical concepts, intention matters. Manipulation is damaging when the intention of the consentee doesn't take into consideration the consenter's will, well-being and/or intends to withhold or falsify information with the purpose of deceptively altering the consenter's way of thinking about a particular issue. What the hell does that mean? One standard example here is the doctor who characterizes sexual activities as a therapeutic treatment. Grooming, used by sexual predators, where minors are lured into “consenting” to having sex, is a clear example of this too. Similar "techniques" could be involved in BDSMK, whether a Dominant who grooms a submissive into consenting to acts to which the sub would not have consented in the absence of the manipulation, or vice versa, is irrelevant.

We should thread carefully here, obviously, there are legitimate ways of persuading persons to change their mind and change their preferences. That talent is what makes the difference between a fucking Master and a cardboard dominant. But it’s obvious that there are people who will manipulate in an illegitimate and undermining manner. So, what is the criteria by which we should distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate ways of changing a person's preferences/opinions? This falls, once again, in the theoretical field of ethics, but I think we can use a simple rule: Not taking advantage of people's gullibility.

Competence

The most [non] controversial part of consent. I have the unpopular hot take that people should be at least 25 years old to go into kink play. Deep controversial issue. I have lost friends, I have been called a puritan, I have been ridiculed but I continue to defend my stand about it. That's what happens with ethical issues, they are not visible and bloody enough to cause alarm and provoke everyone's indignation, normalization and legalization often even works against it, and so you end up with ethical opinions that everyone seen as "controversial".

Again, the vast literature on informed consent is medical ethics, and it explores this THOROUGHLY. Few will probably doubt that there are conditions [intoxication, mental impairment, insanity, immaturity, great mental distress etc.] where competence is undermined to an extent where consent is impaired or nullified. What people refuse to acknowledge is that a 18, 19, 20, 21 kid does not have the sufficient knowledge nor possess the mental competence to give a consent that can hold through time. If a person is likely to regret doing something, that means the consent was shaky at best. Valid consent stands the past of time, endures scrutiny of repentance. There's a huge difference between: "I regret doing it" and "I regret with, how or what I did".

Competence requires the consenter has [at the time of consent] a clear, stable, and able mind for them to be able to evaluate real life consequences in the aftermath. Of course, the exact boundary is hard to draw. some cases will inevitably fall into a gray zone. What shouldn’t be controversial, unclear or even shaky is competence’s relevance and that some people’s lack of it to a degree, impairing or nullifying consent.

Notice that the four conditions; knowledge; intention; voluntariness; and competence, are nothing more than different mechanisms through which we can detect when autonomy might be undermined. Knowledge might be distorted or withheld in an autonomy-undermining way; one’s intentions can be malformed or even eradicated if one’s will is systematically broken or tinkered with, hence, one can’t exercise autonomous choices; one’s conditions might be of a kind in which voluntariness is absent to a degree where one can’t form an independent opinion or exercise any kind of autonomous choice, and one’s competence might be undermined or lacking to a degree where we can’t speak of autonomy.

Most kinky folks nowadays say they follow SSC principles but there are a bunch of folks who are more. . .eclectic?. These fellows argue that consent must be immutable and irrevocable for BDSMK to be considered as “trueful”. Who are these people? Well, some of them call themselves CORE, and they claim to be the heirs and guardians of The Old School. I am not making this shit up. This it’s legit.

So, Core it’s the kinkpoke-evolution of traditional BDSM practices. This “movement” was founded by Master Aden, a 51 y.o Fetlife user. He argues that “traditional BDSM has been changed by new kinksters [therefor] “contemporary kink [is just] kink with BDSM elements or pseudo-BDSM or even more, [mere] vanilla, IS NOT BDSM because it does not follow traditional standards and values but has borrowed and reused terms from traditional BDSM”. Sir [how he likes to be referred as], is of the opinion that true BDSM should be more than kink activities, shouldn't be a separation between play and real life, BDSM should be a way of life. Let that sink in. There's more.

Consent within Core BDSM, aka the true BDSM, is immutable and irrevocable, Immutable Authority Transfer (IAT). Now, immutable means you can't change your mind about things and irrevocable means you can’t reverse something. Which in a very simple way means that in Core once you give "consent" to something you can not change your mind about it nor can you revoke your consent based on your own thoughts and feelings, otherwise you will deem as a faker, not the real thing. They even argue that “this breach […] is similar to a marriage ending in divorce when vows are broken”. So, do you remember intention and voluntariness conditions? Isn't gatekeeping a way of manipulation? Isn’t a threat saying “if you change your mind this will end”?

If we use the premise that consent is what allows safe & sane to be in place, we should ask ourselves: can consent legitimize just about any action, no matter how detrimental the consequences of that action are for the consenting party’s interests? Because, these are the kind of questions we should be making, is the kind of discussion we should be having. The simple answer to that question is, NO. Such a maximalist conceptualisation of consent’s moral power is incoherent. Consent must draw its force from somewhere; that “somewhere” is safe autonomy.

There are actions which one can consent to that undermines that autonomy to an extent, where the very source of consent’s power is cut off, and hence, consent loses its “ethical magic”. Isn't like so many people like to think: "If they say yes then, ANYTHING goes". An action might be freely chosen, but if one’s knowledge about the relevant facts or one’s competence is somehow impaired in the relevant sense, the status of the consent as an instance of autonomous action is doubtful at the very least.

I don’t know this Aden person, don’t know his ethics but I do know consent. The ability to change your mind about it, modify it, and/or withdraw it is a critical part of its very existence. Power exchange dynamics, friendship, partnership, BDSM play, and sexuality are distinct bonds. While they can be interwoven, they don’t always come together. Power exchange relationships must be based in reality, and not fantasy or works of fiction. These relationships are between humans, changing living beings, aspiring to make them unchangeable under threat of expulsion is ethically reprehensible.

If you made it this far, thank you. Writing about these types of topics is never easy, much less does it make me more popular, but none of those things are my goals. The goal is to help create a kink community where we can all use our own voice and change as many times as we want. I want to be able to shed light where there is rarely one, reason why these writings take a lot of research, analysis, writing and corrections, reason why patreons are so important for us. And remember, you can always change your mind!

Stay safe, keep it sane, make it consensual and have fun with it!

See you on the next one.