"Right of Last Refusal"
I am so stealing that.
Well, sort of. It's not the first time I've heard that said, but Flagg brought that up over in a thread on FetLife on Consensual Non-Consent.
Without addressing the dynamics of abusive relationships, which are complicated by a variety of factors that change basd on the length of the relationship, the length of the abuse, and the type/style of abuse, and the characteristics of both the abuser and the abusee, I have long maintained in both D/s and M/s contexts (as well as all other forms of relationships, especially the Poly community) that all people within them are ultimately responsible for their choice to stay in a relationship. A history of abuse for anyone in the relationship does complicate the matter in a clinical (and forensic) sense, but there is no evidence to suggest that abuse itself is any more or less prevalent in BDSM (or Poly or Queer) relationships than it is in straight, vanilla relationships.
But to get back to the main thrust of the post. I don't like the term "Consensual Non-Consent" because it is a bit of an oxymoron (as at least one person pointed out on that thread), things like rape-play aren't rape and while they can are often quite accurate replications of a rape (and depending upon the level of play can be indistinguishable to a large degree) the referential context is entirely different at a certain point - what they are are pretty intense forms of edgeplay for many people. FWIW: This change in the referential context or the overall narrative meaning is the key difference in the individuals ability to process the event as trauma or as play.
In any case, it doesn't quite capture, or somewhat obscures, the notion/fact that everyone does things in the context of a relationship that they do not enjoy, do not want to, disagree with, and would often never do otherwise. Now, for most relationships this may never be anything more than seeing a certain movie, or eating some cuisine, or going to a local watering hole for drinks. It may be more personal; a hairstyle, a shared activity like a card game, a sex act. People choose to do things because they find the other person, or the relationship, valuable - it is the art and science of compromise, with the other person, and with ourselves.
The right of last refusal applies to all relationships, but is perhaps most properly applied to M/s or D/s relationships where broad consent has been granted, or where there are the "no limits" or "no safewords" parameters for the dynamic in question (or some version thereof). in relationships. It means that that everyone has the choice and the opportunity to say no.
And as a result, end the relationship.
It also depends upon the other person deciding that they want, or having set up, this "last refusal" to be exactly that. It takes two people to end a relationship, one person to say no and the other person to let them (poly can get a bit more complicated, actually a great deal more complicated depending on the network involved).
Consent is more than just agreement to certain acts.
It is to an ideal.
Well, sort of. It's not the first time I've heard that said, but Flagg brought that up over in a thread on FetLife on Consensual Non-Consent.
Without addressing the dynamics of abusive relationships, which are complicated by a variety of factors that change basd on the length of the relationship, the length of the abuse, and the type/style of abuse, and the characteristics of both the abuser and the abusee, I have long maintained in both D/s and M/s contexts (as well as all other forms of relationships, especially the Poly community) that all people within them are ultimately responsible for their choice to stay in a relationship. A history of abuse for anyone in the relationship does complicate the matter in a clinical (and forensic) sense, but there is no evidence to suggest that abuse itself is any more or less prevalent in BDSM (or Poly or Queer) relationships than it is in straight, vanilla relationships.
But to get back to the main thrust of the post. I don't like the term "Consensual Non-Consent" because it is a bit of an oxymoron (as at least one person pointed out on that thread), things like rape-play aren't rape and while they can are often quite accurate replications of a rape (and depending upon the level of play can be indistinguishable to a large degree) the referential context is entirely different at a certain point - what they are are pretty intense forms of edgeplay for many people. FWIW: This change in the referential context or the overall narrative meaning is the key difference in the individuals ability to process the event as trauma or as play.
In any case, it doesn't quite capture, or somewhat obscures, the notion/fact that everyone does things in the context of a relationship that they do not enjoy, do not want to, disagree with, and would often never do otherwise. Now, for most relationships this may never be anything more than seeing a certain movie, or eating some cuisine, or going to a local watering hole for drinks. It may be more personal; a hairstyle, a shared activity like a card game, a sex act. People choose to do things because they find the other person, or the relationship, valuable - it is the art and science of compromise, with the other person, and with ourselves.
The right of last refusal applies to all relationships, but is perhaps most properly applied to M/s or D/s relationships where broad consent has been granted, or where there are the "no limits" or "no safewords" parameters for the dynamic in question (or some version thereof). in relationships. It means that that everyone has the choice and the opportunity to say no.
And as a result, end the relationship.
It also depends upon the other person deciding that they want, or having set up, this "last refusal" to be exactly that. It takes two people to end a relationship, one person to say no and the other person to let them (poly can get a bit more complicated, actually a great deal more complicated depending on the network involved).
Consent is more than just agreement to certain acts.
It is to an ideal.