This page sponsored by JT's Stockroom    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : O&P : "Consent in O&P" 1 2 3 Consent in O&P (25) This post is on the O&P web board. Fri 16 Oct 09, 12:07 AM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! I think that every consensual D/s or BDSM framework needs to spell out how it deals with consent because of the role consent plays in setting boundaries to the dominant's power. This raises the question of where the requirement for consent comes from: is it an axiomatic, foundational principle which is just agreed on; does it derive from, say, concepts of human rights; or does it come from something more fundamental? I believe that the acknowledgement of property, especially private property, is a universal part of human nature. Some cultures may disagree about what can be property, but they all agree that some things are property. For instance, a nomadic tribesman may consider that land cannot be owned by anyone, but he's very clear who his knife belongs to, and if you steal it, he and any bystanders will agree with the justice in him recovering it by force. Moreover, this applies equally well to Stone Age hunters with flint knives, and people in their kitchen today with carving knives. Whether or not you agree that the right to your own property is a universal ethical principle that derives directly from human nature, I hope we can agree that as O&P is defined in terms of property, it's natural to use property rights (of whatever origin) as its ethical foundation. The manifesto then derives consent from there. People are born owning themselves, under the guardianship of parents. As adults, people have the right to hand over some or all of their self-ownership. Respect for property rights requires that O&P must be entered with the freely given informed consent of the submissive. One advantage of this approach is that it is deeply respectful of people's self-determination. This is in contrast to cases like Spanner, where the European Convention on Human Rights allows governments to nanny their citizens, including imprisoning them for some kinds of consensual BDSM done on their own bodies. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk 16 Oct 09, 5:18 AM Master_Teel US(TX), 4 yrs As a father of three small children, I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that we're born owning ourselves. There are many times that I over-ride my daughters' will and impose my own on them. Dad runs the house, sets the rules, and they have to abide. Screw-ups often result in some form of punishment. As twisted as this might sound, the only real difference between the father/daughter and the daddy/pet relationships is that my daughters never gave me their consent. They're just entrusted to me and their mother to shape and mold as we see fit (within what the law allows, obviously). As they get older, then they get to try out being their own person as more and more freedoms are transferred over, until they finally reach legal age. In my view, this is really when the transfer of ownership happens. By law, they become empowered to live out from under my rule. They can [i]choose[/i] to stay home if they desire, and then this is where the consent appears in the argument. You can't give away what you don't yet own. Master_Teel Use Google to search SD: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=+site:se... 16 Oct 09, 11:31 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Tanos - I'm not sure of your meaning here. I think your manifesto is a good philosophical description, but by comparing it to the Spanner fiasco, are you also saying it could be translated into social or judicial legislation? (By-the-by, I like what you've been doing with these new topics - they give me things to think on. ) Master_Teel wrote: They're just entrusted to me and their mother to shape and mold as we see fit (within what the law allows, obviously). As you say, they're only *entrusted* to you to provide and administer for their care and well-being. They still retain the same basic rights under the law as any other person, a thing that would be demonstrated in part by their removal if you or their mother ceased to meet this criteria. If you're speaking of self-ownership in a legal/social sense, would you not consider this its definition? Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 16 Oct 09, 2:04 PM De_Luxe UK, 3 yrs We may feel spiritually or philosophically we do but in law no we aren't born owning ourselves! In English law (as pertains to medical treatment) we are not born owning our bodies but become able to by reason of the capacity to understand the consequences of giving informed consent. It revolves around being *legally competent* A person aged 16 years or over is deemed legally competent to give informed consent for medical treatment, unless there is evidence to the contrary. If under 16 a 'child' can be legally competent if they have "sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed". http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent-to-Treat... 16 Oct 09, 6:19 PM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! Master_Teel wrote: As a father of three small children, I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that we're born owning ourselves. Before we start, that's meant as an ethical position, rather than a legal one. As twisted as this might sound, the only real difference between the father/daughter and the daddy/pet relationships is that my daughters never gave me their consent. They're just entrusted to me and their mother to shape and mold as we see fit (within what the law allows, obviously). I think that parents have a responsibility to make choices which are in the child's best interests, and result in them growing up into a healthy, independent individual who can leave and make their own way in the world. I think those aims are very different to those of dominants and owners in O&P (and daddy/pet relationships where they are equivalent to M/s or 24/7 D/s.) For instance, I think burdening a child with unnecessary work at the expense of their education for the convenience of the parents is wrong. But in an M/s relationship, for example, it can be perfectly reasonable for the master to decide that he doesn't want his slave going back to college to complete her education rather than concentrate on serving him. For this reason, I don't believe it is right to view parents as owning their children. They're guardians or trustees, acting on behalf of the child and their life ahead. As they get older, then they get to try out being their own person as more and more freedoms are transferred over, until they finally reach legal age. In my view, this is really when the transfer of ownership happens. I would say that's when the guardianship ends. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk Edited 16 Oct 09, 6:44 PM by Tanos 16 Oct 09, 6:25 PM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! Domme_deluxe wrote: In English law (as pertains to medical treatment) we are not born owning our bodies but become able to by reason of the capacity to understand the consequences of giving informed consent. In English law, living bodies, corpses and body parts never become property unless they are turned into something else (eg made into an exhibit by Gunther von Hagens.) The whole framework, including the recent human tissue act, is in terms of possession and allowed uses, rather than ownership of property. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk 16 Oct 09, 6:44 PM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! EvaMaria wrote: I'm not sure of your meaning here. I think your manifesto is a good philosophical description, but by comparing it to the Spanner fiasco, are you also saying it could be translated into social or judicial legislation? Personally, I think self-ownership would be a better fundamental principle than the collection of rights in the European Convention on Human Rights, which is becoming the de-facto basis of our law (and which failed the Spanner men.) Specific rights can still be derived from self-ownership, but it's a more general concept. I think it would be a better to start from the position that our bodies are our own and then decide how much governments can encroach on that domain. Human rights tend to list a limited set of rights and weigh up how they can be limited by governments. The problem arises when you have activities no one thought to create rights about. So, when society asks "Should subs go to prison for conspiring in their own SM assualt?" or "Should all the internal organs of dead babies be secretly retained by hospitals?" or "Should the state have the automatic right to harvest your organs for transplant, unless you've filled in the right form?", instead of weighing up whether "the right to private and family" life protects the kidneys of the dead, the answer is simply that the wishes of the body's owner (or their guardians/heirs) should be followed. (By-the-by, I like what you've been doing with these new topics - they give me things to think on. ) Thanks Tanos www.tanos.org.uk Personal ad: "D/s relationship, perhaps 24/7" O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. Edited 16 Oct 09, 7:11 PM by Tanos 18 Oct 09, 9:05 AM 650-736-585 GR, 2 yrs Master Tanos, What a f*cking awesome topic!! I was not even aware of such a thing like this going on in the UK and subsequently in EU. You "forced" me to do a deeper research. I'm now writing a big topic about it in my blog (it's in Greek, so not worth sharing here) about the questions and thoughts is has generated in my mind. At the end, the whole thing leaves me with a question: To whom do I belong after all? To myself? To the "State"? To God? If I'm not master of my own, how can I "give" myself to someone else (even as a submissive)? It reminds me a theological theory: "Your soul comes from God, thus it does not belong to you; thus, you cannot sale it to the Devil..." But really... You blew my mind with this topic and opened a whole new world to me. I thank you for that! • I humbly ask for your tolerance and forgiveness to my ignorance. 18 Oct 09, 4:13 PM De_Luxe UK, 3 yrs Tanos wrote: Domme_deluxe wrote: In English law (as pertains to medical treatment) we are not born owning our bodies but become able to by reason of the capacity to understand the consequences of giving informed consent. In English law, living bodies, corpses and body parts never become property unless they are turned into something else (eg made into an exhibit by Gunther von Hagens.) The whole framework, including the recent human tissue act, is in terms of possession and allowed uses, rather than ownership of property. Regards, Tanos I mentioned the above because it is an example of a socially accepted practice pertaining to the giving of informed consent which depends on understanding rather than age. Would you mind saying why you have coined the term Possession? 18 Oct 09, 5:15 PM De_Luxe UK, 3 yrs Tanos wrote: I think that parents have a responsibility to make choices which are in the child's best interests, and result in them growing up into a healthy, independent individual who can leave and make their own way in the world. I think those aims are very different to those of dominants and owners in O&P (and daddy/pet relationships where they are equivalent to M/s or 24/7 D/s.) For instance, I think burdening a child with unnecessary work at the expense of their education for the convenience of the parents is wrong. But in an M/s relationship, for example, it can be perfectly reasonable for the master to decide that he doesn't want his slave going back to college to complete her education rather than concentrate on serving him. From what I have seen there are a number of owner / dominants who seem to aim to put the slave into too weak a position to be able to contemplate leaving while other owner / dominants seem to aim to enable the slave to be in a strong position to leave but keep them enslaved by reducing the likelihood that the slave would contemplate doing so. I'm sure others come somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum. I would say both camps intend to permanently enslave but come at that from almost opposite ends of the spectrum to 'skin the cat'. Next page