TALKING POINT 5
MUTUAL CONSENT
Disapproval of so-called 'Bondage' activities is too often based on the idea that personal freedom is at risk. In spite of the fact that willing surrender of personal liberty is what attracts most people to Power Exchange games, the disapprovers often use apparent removal of choice as an excuse for their prejudice. Paradoxically, these folks are happy to insist that their personal opinions on the subject should be imposed on everybody else ... preferably by Law! So, this subject of Mutual Consent is of prime importance to existing and would-be game-players.

The actual legal situation of anyone who enjoys physical restraint and power exchange games is discussed elsewhere. Here and now, the ethics of different sorts of control and counter-control games is all that concern us. Unfortunately, the arguments recently used to criminalise specific aspects of S&M game-playing in Britain have created far more danger than they have prevented.
By refusing to recognise Mutual Consent as an essential factor in certain (maybe extreme) S&M activities, they have clouded a previously clear legally accepted line. Consent or lack of consent is what so many social, domestic, sexual disputes hinge upon.

Players of S&M games no longer have the protection of the law in Britain if any such game ceases to be mutually consensual ... because the activity they were involved in now might technically be a crime. Incidentally, this new definition of an existing law eroded the personal rights of thousands of individuals on the say-so of one man without reference to Parliament. A highly questionable situation which the Law Lords subsequently failed to tackle head on. (I'll now hop off my soapbox).

Returning to agreement between those involved in such games: Every partnership whether permanent or transitory must arrive at its own mutually acceptable set of ground-rules. For this, as already discussed, vocabulary needs to be precise. An ability to communicate private, perhaps painfully personal needs is something two people are wise to establish. Opportunity to explore, sample, share and evaluate experiences are what give this field of activity it's astonishing diversity. Two people able to discuss and evaluate after an experiment can create a real bond. By building on previous shared experiences, new initiatives can be risked, new heights can be reached. We are not talking addictive progression. We're talking a growing sense of shared responsibility, sensitivity, trust, ... in a word, mutuality.

 

TALKING POINT 7
CONSENSUAL NON-CONSENT
Now here's a sophisticated extension of a topic to blow the minds of the Politically Correct. In a nut shell ... a lot of people attracted to power exchange games wish to surrender ALL responsibilities. However, behind most do-your-worst invitations the ground rules have already been established. Even when the most extreme sounding kidnap or (dare one say) rape fantasies are discussed, certain mutually agreed limitations are implicit in the planning.

It's commonly accepted that physical restraint encounters shouldn't happen between strangers. Getting to know someone socially or through a personal recommendation or seeing them in action at a club demo provides an essential safety barrier. The thrill of not knowing what is going to happen is fine, but in reality it's fraught with danger. Without ground-rules any 'No limits' encounter can fail for a lot of unexpected reasons. In the early stages of 'Mutual Consent' encounters general likes-and-dislikes are exchanged, specific physical imitations or emotional no-go areas are identified. When inviting someone to totally remove all choice from you ... the ALL is already qualified.

Even when putting oneself at real risk is the main attraction (and in my opinion every individual should be free to decide to what extent that risk is worth taking) most people instinctively calculate the amount of real risk involved. Awareness of risk doesn't necessarily dampen enthusiasm for it ... or we would have no fire fighters, police force, lifeboat crews or Pot-holers. Modern life is dangerously short on risk-taking opportunities ... which is perhaps why so many young people are turning to Social Crime.
No one is suggesting that organised risk-taking via S&M and Bondage Fantasy Enactment games is the answer to otherwise predictable lives. But, consenting to surrender consent should be an acceptable concept ... as long as information is available to limit the implicit dangers. I'm not making radical recommendations here, I am facing the indisputable fact that elaborate Role Playing fantasy enactment scenarios with virtually no specified limits are happening in clubs and private bedrooms in many parts of the world every day. Believe me they are. If you were allowed to read "DRUMMER" magazine or "BOUND & GAGGED" or "MASSAD" you would have more information on which to base your own opinions.

To provide a total removal of choice experience for somebody can be more dangerous for the giver than the receiver. The responsibility of making a dream come true is fraught with unexpected pitfalls. Just as it's impossible to please somebody unless you have some indication of what they like ... most of us don't know if we will really enjoy something we've fantasised about until it happens for real. Occasionally dreams have a way of turning into nightmares, so if someone invites a "No Limits" experience and it's more than he/she bargained for, it's up to the controller to try to recognise the signs. BUT in a situation where the "victim" also wants the luxury of being able to resist, complain, scream for help if allowed, get angry ... the controller of the scene has to double guess and sometimes triple guess a manipulative "bottom".

During what might seem to be a ruthless forced control scene, sensitivity to the delicate balance between the demands of the fantasy scenario and the actual mental/physical state of the willingly helpless victim (especially if he/she is efficiently immobilised and gagged) is essential. For the controller of such a scene to sustain the energy and atmosphere, improvising while following a pre-determined plan; anticipating needs while monitoring changes in emotional climate; deciding whether to push the scene ahead or ease up temporarily ... is a tightrope. The responsibilities of the controller, whether male or female combines the roles of stage manager, director, scriptwriter, lover and GOD.
Even token surrender of ALL choice is a subject for any couple to explore in detail before jumping off the high diving board. It's advisable to have first played together in the shallows.