Stag Vixen (non-cuckold)

Is it really about what you call it or is it more about who you want to go fucking with or not?

So you can put in context who I am and why I’m saying what I’m saying…

Been off and on in the lifestyle since about 2014. I barely knew of the word ‘cuck’ until I came to b2w last summer. I’ve played primarily with couples where the husband/bf either played along with (a mfm thing) or let her play alone when she wanted. I’ve dabbled in the group thing and, of course, there’s 1-on-1. I don’t consider myself a “bull.” I’m a black man who loves sex with white women under circumstances that suit all those involved. One time or ongoing – if the feeling is right then let’s do it. If it doesn’t, we move on. Not looking for lots of sessions just for fuck’s sake – only good, deep in the groin, mind blowing sex. If it’s not 1-on-1, I go through the husband/bf. Out of respect. And to determine what roles we are all considering playing. I have never been around or seen or considered humiliation or ‘clean up after’ on the part of either him or her. So with that…

We deal with a lot of ******* – not just bad ******* or good *******, just a lot of stuff: There are the hundreds or even thousands of daily interactions we have with people. We interact and react not only in person but from afar. (We have judgments and feelings about things we see and hear about abroad, right?) And we have so much in common, yet we’re all different, unique. We simply can’t keep up with or manage our lives based on dealing with all this interaction, reaction and people on a transaction-by-transaction basis with all the people we meet. So what do we do? We put people and those transactions in buckets, categories – and give them labels. That’s a much more efficient (just not effective) way to manage and deal with all this *******. We can make instantaneous decisions about how we feel about someone if there are only a limited number of ‘categories’ or labels to deal with versus millions of individual transactions and analyses. Of course, we all are capable of and in fact do vary from our initial ‘label reactions’ once we have more data about the person or situation. (“Oh, you’re married. Your type brings too many issues. Don’t want to play with you. Oh! You’re a really nice, put-together guy and you’re sexy, too. OK. Let’s fuck!”)

There’s also this concept about chemistry. Very often, we want to fuck or don’t want to fuck someone based on the chemistry. Chemistry can out trump labels and biases – good and bad.

And throw in diversity to this mix. We humans are not monolithic in our psychology, physical makeup, social mores or behavior. (Yeah, we don’t all look alike, have big dicks/little dicks, like the same dirty talk/no talk, etc., etc.) My god, what does that do to the categories and labels? You can almost go crazy coming up with the exceptions, acceptable/unacceptable variations, sub-categories, related subcategories, etc. Our labels get to look like the hundreds of branches on a tree. (“Well, it’s ok if they’re a cuck (branch), into humiliation (sub-branch) except if it involves physical abuse (sub-sub-branch) but verbal abuse is ok (sub-sub-sub branch) if it doesn’t go too far and it’s a Tuesday and the dog had puppies last week.” How do we keep track of all these branches and sub-branches? We give them labels, too! PROBLEM: Does my label cover the same things as your label? Exclude the same things as your label? How do we know if it does or not? When is the next sub-committee meeting on defining the labels?

Now, take a motherfucker like me and put me into this IR sex haven and throw in cuckolds, dom/submissive, stag/vixen and the agreements and disagreements as to what is and isn’t and I would have to have 12 scorecards just to figure out what door to go through to find some white pussy to fuck with!! I don’t do that. I take what is closer to a chemistry-like approach. I have my prejudices and preferences and let my feelings put me in a starting position. It’s easier not to give a ******* about the label on the door when I know damn well what’s inside is not likely to conform to what I think the label is in the first goddamn place. (Witness: this thread.) There are variations and interpretations and life experiences that filter and flavor what we think things are and that is almost a textbook definition of what causes inconsistency. We look at and consider the same damn thing and can have 4 different reactions to it. But as my friend Donna (Dblinsey) says – “whatever works for you that’s great.” Go with it. If I'm not the one, I’m a big boy and am capable of quietly (read: not being judgmental!) packing up my marbles and going elsewhere. We’re all primarily trying to get a nutt, so let’s all go find what we want and don’t fuck with what we don’t. What difference does it make what the label or sign on the door says?

How do I know or deal with the differences? How do I find my nutt? Chemistry. How do you determine chemistry? Communication!! We talk, we read, we listen, we look. Mix it all together with prejudices and preferences and guess what? I’ve found, at least, that I dig some of the things with the ‘wrong labels’ and don’t want to go near ones I thought were cool. It all depends on the people I interact with and where they’re coming from. And holy fuck – I’ve found I have some ‘fetishes’ I didn’t realize I had…and others I thought were da bomb are more like firecrackers. All determined by whether I want to fall in fuck with them or not, which brings me back to chemistry.

I didn’t know much about a cuck from a fuck and never came across the term “Stag/Vixen” until last week but I put all this into my knowledge base and mix it with my understanding, prejudices, preferences and engage with all the good – and bad – people on this site and find exactly what I’m looking for and identify exactly who I’m staying away from. Labels are no more than keywords in an online search – they get you to the neighborhood but don’t direct you to the house you’re looking for. It’s a way to browse and the labels are what the labels are and aren’t worth spending a lot of energy arguing or getting upset about.

If I do or don’t want to be a part of a mfm thing or care whether he wants to just watch and take pics and video (and I consent) so he can watch and whack off later, why should I care if she’s a hot wife or a sub to his dom or a dominant cuckold or what the fuck?! Why would I go into an analysis as to whether he was acting like some kind of hot wife hubby last time, now he’s acting like some kind of cuck? If I like them I if there’s chemistry - Why should I care about anything except “let’s just get a room!!”
 
Okay,

First, I see where you’re coming from, labels tend to cloud the issue. Binary solution set – wanna fuck, yes no.

But when dealing with labels, we need to both zoom in but take a ‘world view’ Obviously, we start from the world view, and like a telephoto lens, zoom in on what the debate is.

Binary relationships (male / female) fall into two categories; open/closed.

Of the open, we have ‘swingers’ and ‘players’ – players are where one person plays, the other doesn’t.

Of the players, we have men who have affairs and women who have affairs

Of the women, we have those that will sleep with whites, those with blacks.

Now we’re at the focal point of this forum. Women who enjoy blacks. That’s what this forum is about.

It doesn’t take a lot of research to see that this is also divided: people into humiliation / people who aren’t.

Here’s a diagram to further illustrate my point:

1587070966674.png

For convenience sake and generally speaking, we call the 'Respectful' group "STAG/VIXEN" and the others "CUCKOLD/HOTWIFE".

Overwhelmingly (or the most vocal, I don’t know) seem to be the guys (both black and white) who enjoy humiliation. Open up the “What’s New” tab. See how many are derogatory towards either women or men. On an average day, I’d say at least 50/50.

The people in this thread tend to buck that trend. We’re into it not to humiliate the wife OR husband, but to enjoy ourselves with their consent.

We aren’t slapping labels on anything, any more than an anthropologist is drawing out human evolution. We’re not labeling for labeling sake, as you infer, be are setting ourselves apart from those who draw pleasure out of bashing someone else.

I love and respect my husband. If he were to ask me to stop, I would. Why? Because I love and respect him.

It’s all as simple as that.

Okay, the exam will be next week, closed book, bring a Number two pencil and leave all electronic devices, to include cell phones, outside the room.

Class dismissed

Donna
 
Okay,

First, I see where you’re coming from, labels tend to cloud the issue. Binary solution set – wanna fuck, yes no.

But when dealing with labels, we need to both zoom in but take a ‘world view’ Obviously, we start from the world view, and like a telephoto lens, zoom in on what the debate is.

Binary relationships (male / female) fall into two categories; open/closed.

Of the open, we have ‘swingers’ and ‘players’ – players are where one person plays, the other doesn’t.

Of the players, we have men who have affairs and women who have affairs

Of the women, we have those that will sleep with whites, those with blacks.

Now we’re at the focal point of this forum. Women who enjoy blacks. That’s what this forum is about.

It doesn’t take a lot of research to see that this is also divided: people into humiliation / people who aren’t.

Here’s a diagram to further illustrate my point:

View attachment 3292907

For convenience sake and generally speaking, we call the 'Respectful' group "STAG/VIXEN" and the others "CUCKOLD/HOTWIFE".

Overwhelmingly (or the most vocal, I don’t know) seem to be the guys (both black and white) who enjoy humiliation. Open up the “What’s New” tab. See how many are derogatory towards either women or men. On an average day, I’d say at least 50/50.

The people in this thread tend to buck that trend. We’re into it not to humiliate the wife OR husband, but to enjoy ourselves with their consent.

We aren’t slapping labels on anything, any more than an anthropologist is drawing out human evolution. We’re not labeling for labeling sake, as you infer, be are setting ourselves apart from those who draw pleasure out of bashing someone else.

I love and respect my husband. If he were to ask me to stop, I would. Why? Because I love and respect him.

It’s all as simple as that.

Okay, the exam will be next week, closed book, bring a Number two pencil and leave all electronic devices, to include cell phones, outside the room.

Class dismissed

Donna

I have already voiced my opinion in this thread, and I received a respectful response. I truly appreciate that. However, I wanted to speak up again from a cuckoldresses perspective about this organizational chart.

It seems as though you are arbitrarily labeling the difference between stag/vixen couples and cuckold couples as a matter of "respect" given among parties. That outlook is missing the mark. Its a total false dichotomy to place "humiliation" and "respect" on two ends of a spectrum. My partner has a desire to be humiliated in the bedroom, and his desire has nothing to do with the respect between him, my bull, and I. In fact, I would venture to say that more respect has to be present in order for more cuckolding elements to be added into the dynamic, as it intensifies the play and requires maturity from all parties. It's ridiculous to assume that I don't respect my partner because I humiliate him in the bedroom, as it is a consensual act and one he enjoys greatly.

This essentially boils down to differences in play preferences among couples, which vary wildly. I could make a chart to try and explain differences in play preferences and I'm sure I would misidentify a few divisions. But I had to address the fact that although I cage, deny, and humiliate my cuck I absolutely respect him. Donna, I feel as though you may have limited experiences with real cuckold couples as opposed to the many fetishists and fantasists you see on this site. If you could interact with a real cuckold couple you would likely see that respect, love and communication are just as fundamental in our style of relationship as any other.

EDIT: Also I understand you used these labels for conveniences sake, as you stated, but it could easily be misleading. This is especially true for couples/individuals curious about this lifestyle.
 
I have already voiced my opinion in this thread, and I received a respectful response. I truly appreciate that. However, I wanted to speak up again from a cuckoldresses perspective about this organizational chart.

It seems as though you are arbitrarily labeling the difference between stag/vixen couples and cuckold couples as a matter of "respect" given among parties. That outlook is missing the mark. Its a total false dichotomy to place "humiliation" and "respect" on two ends of a spectrum. My partner has a desire to be humiliated in the bedroom, and his desire has nothing to do with the respect between him, my bull, and I. In fact, I would venture to say that more respect has to be present in order for more cuckolding elements to be added into the dynamic, as it intensifies the play and requires maturity from all parties. It's ridiculous to assume that I don't respect my partner because I humiliate him in the bedroom, as it is a consensual act and one he enjoys greatly.

This essentially boils down to differences in play preferences among couples, which vary wildly. I could make a chart to try and explain differences in play preferences and I'm sure I would misidentify a few divisions. But I had to address the fact that although I cage, deny, and humiliate my cuck I absolutely respect him. Donna, I feel as though you may have limited experiences with real cuckold couples as opposed to the many fetishists and fantasists you see on this site. If you could interact with a real cuckold couple you would likely see that respect, love and communication are just as fundamental in our style of relationship as any other.
Great!

I have recognized your preference before and I DID NOT condemn it. Far from it. I'm of the opinion that if something works for you, then go for it!

I was trying to respond to the post I was quoting. No, I could never hope to encapsulate every variation. That's the point of the previous poster. There are just too many variations to list. You like one thing (wonderful) we like another (equally wonderful). I was trying to illustrate that an individual could draw a straight line between various preferences.

I also believe that the stance of the people within this thread is that they're tired of being put into one lump. My husband lets me enjoy my interest. Therefore, he is a cuckold wimp boi who should have his penis caged and never be allowed to enjoy sex with me because he is obviously inferior.

Look at the majority of threads in this forum. How many embrace that theme? The obvious majority. I have never, ever said that it's wrong. All I've tried to convey is that isn't an approach we approve of. And looking at the majority of people who have commented on this thread, I would offer that our perspective isn't all that unusual.

I don't condemn you, your husband, or your Bull in what you enjoy. Far from it. I'm just trying to say that not everyone who enjoys the Interracial lifestyle is somehow considered inferior and want to be treated thusly.

Woman to woman, we both enjoy the attention of Black men. That's a given. But there are different approaches. You take one, I take the other. Neither is wrong. My illustration was primarily intended to show that there ARE different views.

If I somehow offended you, that was NEVER my intention. Lord no, not at all. I recognize that there are a million variations. For example, your husband may enjoy the temporary humiliation... There are others that enjoy a PERMANENT humiliation, extending far beyond the single event. But I didn't show that because that wasn't answering the post I was responding to.

Finally, if you look at your post, you'll see that I was the first (and so far only) person to 'LOVE' it. Because again, I believe that if it works for you, great! Far be it for me to say you're wrong. Just understand that we aren't wrong either and we'll get along fine, despite our different views

Hugs

Donna
 
The above dialogue between @Dblinsey and @MissScarletQOS illustrate my point. Trying to simplify or differentiate or clarify who's in what part of the chart or across the spectrum is interesting. But it still comes down to what you want in your sexual encounter or not - regardless of agreeing or discussing if the box on the chart fits or not (or could use further explanation or drill down, etc.)

Let me make it personal and thereby make it easier to dismiss my point or accept it in whole or in part: based on what I've said about me, where do I fit on your 'may want to have sex with me' list? And after you decide that, does that decision take me off your possibles list, on your possibles list or don't know enough? If you know your answer, how much of it was influenced by what I've revealed about myself vice what box I fit in (interesting because I never committed to one). You're either interested in getting to know me better to decide or not -- or you've already decided and without knowing "where I'm at." So what did the boxes do to help?

Wow! I thank you for even giving my thoughts the time of day. Please play safe.
 
Hi guys, I know the whole cuckold thing is a whole genre of porn and a lifestyle. I really am interested in finding out some answers so don't go off and get all butt hurt.
What I want to know is where are the non cuckold couples. I personally would never want my man to be a cuck. If you are, then good for you. I would never want my man to do that and I think the Stag Vixen lifestyle is growing.

Bulls, why would you fuck another man's wife and want her husband to clean you up or even want to watch him eat your cum out of her? Doesn't that make you bisexual?

I personally love to have sex with other men. While I am the one with the control and can say no anytime, he can also say no anytime he wants. That means if I want a man but husband doesn't like him, he can nix it right there, and he has done it. Every guy must go through him to get to me. Is there anybody else out there like us? I must say we have some very respectful bulls.
Yes, that is exactly how we operate. Our primary reason for doing this is our sexual/emotional pleasure so a rule like that makes sense. Of course, we do want the guy to have fun as well, but that is secondary.
 
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate...

The prime focus that started this debate was labels. People don't like them for various reasons. They don't like to be pigeon-holed as to what they like or dislike. Others object because they contend that they don't embrace all the outlined criteria for that label. While others think that labels themselves are frivolous and unnecessary.

Okay, but I ask you, where would be be without them. Religion (Christian / Jew / Muslim) are labels. Think about it, they all worship the same God. But we feel the need to differentiate one approach to worship as to another approach. And on top of that, please provide the number of deaths that have occurred over that differential! I'll let you know when you can stop counting.

Here's another example. When my parents were growing up, there was but one way to describe a homosexual - Queer. This morphed into Lez and Gay, which added Bi, then we have the whole alphabet soup to describe someone who prefers same-sex relationships. Isn't the current reference to LGBTQ+ (yes, the '+' is now part of the acronym) a way to label? "Hey, I'm not gay, I'm queer!" Ahhhhhh....

Even 'Male' and 'Female' is a form of labeling. Don't want to label them, how about Human? But wait, let's back up... Mammal? Where does it stop?

You may not need a label to describe yourself (Quoting Popeye "I yam what I yam"), but others need the label to describe YOU. Not only what you are (Male / Female) but who you are (straight, LGBTQ+, monogamous, open, Foreman, technician, recognized professional (lawyer, doctor, teacher), Catholic, Protestant, Jewish).

Labels aren't a bad thing, but they can be. "OH, You're one of THEM!" It totally depends on the sender and receiver. How the sender intends the message to be received and how the receiver does in fact receive it.

But they are 'Bad' in one way. Very few can fit into the perfect label. "Yeah, I'm Catholic, but I don't go to church" or "Hey, I'm 25 percent Black! It's how I identify..."

I suppose I could draw another graph, illustrating all the various forms of 'sharing' there are, but I won't for two reasons.

First, it was rather time consuming and I have stuff to do this evening!

Second, I'm afraid MissScarlet would take off her shoe and pound her 4" heels into my head!

But really, there isn't a viable way to show all the divisions. I will salute the person who tries, and count the minutes until someone chirps up with "Hey, you forgot about me...!"

Anyway, that's how I see it.

(afraid to ask, but... ) thoughts?

Donna
 
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate...

The prime focus that started this debate was labels. People don't like them for various reasons. They don't like to be pigeon-holed as to what they like or dislike. Others object because they contend that they don't embrace all the outlined criteria for that label. While others think that labels themselves are frivolous and unnecessary.

Okay, but I ask you, where would be be without them. Religion (Christian / Jew / Muslim) are labels. Think about it, they all worship the same God. But we feel the need to differentiate one approach to worship as to another approach. And on top of that, please provide the number of deaths that have occurred over that differential! I'll let you know when you can stop counting.

Here's another example. When my parents were growing up, there was but one way to describe a homosexual - Queer. This morphed into Lez and Gay, which added Bi, then we have the whole alphabet soup to describe someone who prefers same-sex relationships. Isn't the current reference to LGBTQ+ (yes, the '+' is now part of the acronym) a way to label? "Hey, I'm not gay, I'm queer!" Ahhhhhh....

Even 'Male' and 'Female' is a form of labeling. Don't want to label them, how about Human? But wait, let's back up... Mammal? Where does it stop?

You may not need a label to describe yourself (Quoting Popeye "I yam what I yam"), but others need the label to describe YOU. Not only what you are (Male / Female) but who you are (straight, LGBTQ+, monogamous, open, Foreman, technician, recognized professional (lawyer, doctor, teacher), Catholic, Protestant, Jewish).

Labels aren't a bad thing, but they can be. "OH, You're one of THEM!" It totally depends on the sender and receiver. How the sender intends the message to be received and how the receiver does in fact receive it.

But they are 'Bad' in one way. Very few can fit into the perfect label. "Yeah, I'm Catholic, but I don't go to church" or "Hey, I'm 25 percent Black! It's how I identify..."

I suppose I could draw another graph, illustrating all the various forms of 'sharing' there are, but I won't for two reasons.

First, it was rather time consuming and I have stuff to do this evening!

Second, I'm afraid MissScarlet would take off her shoe and pound her 4" heels into my head!

But really, there isn't a viable way to show all the divisions. I will salute the person who tries, and count the minutes until someone chirps up with "Hey, you forgot about me...!"

Anyway, that's how I see it.

(afraid to ask, but... ) thoughts?

Donna
We are unique............like everybody else !!!!!!!!!!
 
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate...

The prime focus that started this debate was labels. People don't like them for various reasons. They don't like to be pigeon-holed as to what they like or dislike. Others object because they contend that they don't embrace all the outlined criteria for that label. While others think that labels themselves are frivolous and unnecessary.

Okay, but I ask you, where would be be without them. Religion (Christian / Jew / Muslim) are labels. Think about it, they all worship the same God. But we feel the need to differentiate one approach to worship as to another approach. And on top of that, please provide the number of deaths that have occurred over that differential! I'll let you know when you can stop counting.

Here's another example. When my parents were growing up, there was but one way to describe a homosexual - Queer. This morphed into Lez and Gay, which added Bi, then we have the whole alphabet soup to describe someone who prefers same-sex relationships. Isn't the current reference to LGBTQ+ (yes, the '+' is now part of the acronym) a way to label? "Hey, I'm not gay, I'm queer!" Ahhhhhh....

Even 'Male' and 'Female' is a form of labeling. Don't want to label them, how about Human? But wait, let's back up... Mammal? Where does it stop?

You may not need a label to describe yourself (Quoting Popeye "I yam what I yam"), but others need the label to describe YOU. Not only what you are (Male / Female) but who you are (straight, LGBTQ+, monogamous, open, Foreman, technician, recognized professional (lawyer, doctor, teacher), Catholic, Protestant, Jewish).

Labels aren't a bad thing, but they can be. "OH, You're one of THEM!" It totally depends on the sender and receiver. How the sender intends the message to be received and how the receiver does in fact receive it.

But they are 'Bad' in one way. Very few can fit into the perfect label. "Yeah, I'm Catholic, but I don't go to church" or "Hey, I'm 25 percent Black! It's how I identify..."

I suppose I could draw another graph, illustrating all the various forms of 'sharing' there are, but I won't for two reasons.

First, it was rather time consuming and I have stuff to do this evening!

Second, I'm afraid MissScarlet would take off her shoe and pound her 4" heels into my head!

But really, there isn't a viable way to show all the divisions. I will salute the person who tries, and count the minutes until someone chirps up with "Hey, you forgot about me...!"

Anyway, that's how I see it.

(afraid to ask, but... ) thoughts?

Donna
We're almost there...

I said in my first post:

Of course, we all are capable of and in fact do vary from our initial ‘label reactions’ once we have more data about the person or situation. (“Oh, you’re married. Your type brings too many issues. Don’t want to play with you. Oh! You’re a really nice, put-together guy and you’re sexy, too. OK. Let’s fuck!”)​

My point was that we are not bound by our original reactions or knowledge of what a label represents. The labels do serve a purpose by giving us an initial point of reference, to orient ourselves. We have the ability to and in fact do vary from our initial reactions based on -- here we go -- our seeing, listening, reading and further understanding the person or circumstance in question. In short, the chemistry our understanding creates ultimate determines for us what we conclude - not the label itself. I don't advocate - nor even acknowledge - that we live exclusively by labels.

Where we might differ is that I take the realization that we often do and should arrive at our ultimate conclusions about someone not based on the label but the chemistry, the understanding. Therefore, I don't see the need to get wrapped around the axle on what a label is. It's - in my humble opinion - too complicated, too evolving and too personal to spend more than the few nanoseconds we need to really decide how we feel about a person or situation. So there are zillions of branches, variations and the like -- intellectually interesting and somewhat useful, but by that very nature, has limited value considering the energy we tend to put into it.
 
Chemistry is essential. There has to be that spark or there won't be any fire.

But it's what you're looking for that allows the chemistry to take place. If a woman just isn't into Black guys, he could be Denzel Washington and not go beyond the 'Hello' stage.

That's where the labels come in. What is she looking for. Just a night of drinking and gossip with the girls? Or a full-blown Cougar (another label) on the prowl?

So I guess what I'm trying to say is the goal (the label if you will) defines the chemistry.

Does that make sense?

Donna
 
Chemistry is essential. There has to be that spark or there won't be any fire.

But it's what you're looking for that allows the chemistry to take place. If a woman just isn't into Black guys, he could be Denzel Washington and not go beyond the 'Hello' stage.

That's where the labels come in. What is she looking for. Just a night of drinking and gossip with the girls? Or a full-blown Cougar (another label) on the prowl?

So I guess what I'm trying to say is the goal (the label if you will) defines the chemistry.

Does that make sense?

Donna
Not quite. I'm saying use labels only as a general, high-level indicator of what might be behind the door, and then let what you really ascertain inside to decide and on a csae-by-case basis.

Have we there yet? :unsure:
 
Voluntary engagement is de facto consent. I can't see how it could be regarded as something different.
my first thought too. But then i recognized some folks who are seen as professionals in their work suggest something different. And one part of me tries to understand that/them. ;) And actually i get there might be differences...

First, you can be assuming that someone who engages in something might be both voluntarily (in case you don't "*******" them) and also consensually doing so (because otherwise they wouldn't do it in the firs place, right?). On the other hand you have to admit that not in every case their consent is necessarily outspoken. What if a person "lets something happen" (= engagement) for other reasons ("conformity", perhaps fear, whatever). How would you catch the difference, especially if you don't know that person well (enough)? Okay, many people would say: i have a sense for that and if i feel discomfort in the other person then i "know" and would stop (whatever) immediately. But in real life sometimes you don't necessarily interprete all the signs correctly. :( Not with a stranger, and sometimes not even in a relationship. :(

So i guess there might be a difference between "consent" and "'voluntary' engagement".
Another example would be someone who gave consent(!) to a particular type of play/dynamic at one point, but may change their mind at another (later) point without outspokenly taking back their consent. - Especially hard to catch in a Dom/sub relationship where the "Dom" might suspect everything is (still) fine and the "sub" who may have adjusted to their role as a "beta" doesn't know how to come up with any discomfort that may be there in an "appropriate" manner according to his/her "role" as a sub. :|
(...)

In a D/s situation, the sub is consenting, otherwise it's abuse. The sub is in control of the situation at all times (i.e. Safe Words). If that dynamic is changed, then it's abuse.

Power imbalance may appear to be in the hands of the Dom, but the sub is actually in charge. If not, then it's abuse

If you look at all three movies of '50 Shades of Gray'. (...)
Okay, i have to admit i've never watched those movies consciously (well, i've seen the fist part), but not necessarily "voluntarily". *lol* Maybe i'll have to make up for that. ;) But what you say about abuse is perhaps very much close to what i've said above actually, and has very much to do with REAL consent and voluntary engagement or the lack thereof, respectively. ;)
(...) you'll see the power imbalance shift from Gray to Anna. By the end of the series, she is in total control. A good example of this shift is what she says to the Design Consultant in the middle of the second movie. Here is this mild, meek Anna (up until now) ripping the head off the Design Consultant for flirting with Gray. This marks the shift in the power dynamic that they are living through.
Okay, i will definitely have to watch those movies. :) Always thought those were somewhat lean, far from reality fantasy work for "vanilla" folks who can have a remote fantasy of something they don't have to understand "without guilt". Maybe i was wrong?!

Thank you @Dblinsey for all your thoughtful statements throughout this thread. Sometimes it is very appreciated to have "real talk" versus "just fantasy"! ;)
 
(...) I'm saying use labels only as a general, high-level indicator of what might be behind the door, and then let what you really ascertain inside to decide and on a csae-by-case basis.

(...)
Well, you said a lot of things where you certainly have a point. But just saying it would be important to "have chemistry" is kind of understood. You also said, "labels" worked as sort of search criteria. And that is exactly the point why those are important too (even though i would call them "terms" instead of "labels"). The difference is having to wade through hundereds of ads or just ten to get to someone you may have "chemistry" with depending on how "well-defined" terms are (where most people - including you and the ones you get in touch with - would understand them in approximately the same way) or not. ;) just sayin'
 
my first thought too. But then i recognized some folks who are seen as professionals in their work suggest something different. And one part of me tries to understand that/them. ;) And actually i get there might be differences...

First, you can be assuming that someone who engages in something might be both voluntarily (in case you don't "*******" them) and also consensually doing so (because otherwise they wouldn't do it in the firs place, right?). On the other hand you have to admit that not in every case their consent is necessarily outspoken. What if a person "lets something happen" (= engagement) for other reasons ("conformity", perhaps fear, whatever). How would you catch the difference, especially if you don't know that person well (enough)? Okay, many people would say: i have a sense for that and if i feel discomfort in the other person then i "know" and would stop (whatever) immediately. But in real life sometimes you don't necessarily interprete all the signs correctly. :( Not with a stranger, and sometimes not even in a relationship. :(

So i guess there might be a difference between "consent" and "'voluntary' engagement".
Another example would be someone who gave consent(!) to a particular type of play/dynamic at one point, but may change their mind at another (later) point without outspokenly taking back their consent. - Especially hard to catch in a Dom/sub relationship where the "Dom" might suspect everything is (still) fine and the "sub" who may have adjusted to their role as a "beta" doesn't know how to come up with any discomfort that may be there in an "appropriate" manner according to his/her "role" as a sub. :|
Okay, i have to admit i've never watched those movies consciously (well, i've seen the fist part), but not necessarily "voluntarily". *lol* Maybe i'll have to make up for that. ;) But what you say about abuse is perhaps very much close to what i've said above actually, and has very much to do with REAL consent and voluntary engagement or the lack thereof, respectively. ;)
Okay, i will definitely have to watch those movies. :) Always thought those were somewhat lean, far from reality fantasy work for "vanilla" folks who can have a remote fantasy of something they don't have to understand "without guilt". Maybe i was wrong?!

Thank you @Dblinsey for all your thoughtful statements throughout this thread. Sometimes it is very appreciated to have "real talk" versus "just fantasy"! ;)

I would like to respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Voluntary engagement is consent. Period. "Just because they jump over the cliff, do you/" People make choices. They are good, or bad, but they are free to make that choice. If one drops out of school, for whatever reason, that's a choice. If one enters the porn industry, that's a choice. If one starts to do something they don't like to do, it's a choice to continue to do it.

Risks? Yes, but still a choice. A person who hates their job one day quits. Risk? No Paycheck - unless they have another job lined up.

Now, someone can easily say what if a person is ****** into the porn industry, what about them. In that instance, we don't have a voluntary engagement in an activity.

Even if they are ******* into an activity "Come on! Everyone is doing it..." it's still voluntary engagement because that individual still has a choice.

Donna
 
I would like to respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Voluntary engagement is consent. Period. "Just because they jump over the cliff, do you/" People make choices. They are good, or bad, but they are free to make that choice. If one drops out of school, for whatever reason, that's a choice. If one enters the porn industry, that's a choice. If one starts to do something they don't like to do, it's a choice to continue to do it.

Risks? Yes, but still a choice. A person who hates their job one day quits. Risk? No Paycheck - unless they have another job lined up.

Now, someone can easily say what if a person is ****** into the porn industry, what about them. In that instance, we don't have a voluntary engagement in an activity.

Even if they are ******* into an activity "Come on! Everyone is doing it..." it's still voluntary engagement because that individual still has a choice.

Donna
From a purely behavioral point of view, every conscious action is a choice. It may be 'bad' and we don't like it ("If I don't pay, they'll ******* me. I don't have any choice." Yes you do - it's just that it's so abhorrent that we dismiss it as a desirable alternative but it is nonetheless a choice) - but it's still a choice.
 
From a purely behavioral point of view, every conscious action is a choice. It may be 'bad' and we don't like it ("If I don't pay, they'll ******* me. I don't have any choice." Yes you do - it's just that it's so abhorrent that we dismiss it as a desirable alternative but it is nonetheless a choice) - but it's still a choice.
You are talking about "conscious action" and "choice". i was talking about "voluntary engagement" and "consent". Maybe those two pairs reflect roughly the same, but why i chose the latter terms is because they are in use by the "flagsystem". - A system develeped by "professionals" for "professionals" to help them correctly assess acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior based on six criteria (aspects).
In that system "voluntary engagement" and "consent" are two different aspects, so i think there must be a difference between those two. Just FYI the other criteria are...

* equality,
* development,
* context and
* self-respect.

Your example of "If I don't pay, they'll ******* me." is a good one, ImO. Based on that you may consent to the payment in order not to lose your life, but is it voluntary? Most probably you wouldn't have done it, if you weren't ******.
Food for thoughts.
 
I have questions.

But we've totally hijacked this thread.

Why don't you just message me? Or we can open another thread if there are people interested in following along. But I'd love to have this thread return to it's normal intent

Donna
 
Back
Top