The Club - Meeting 391 - Linguistic Masturbation and Consent/Non-Consent

We are not won by arguments that we can analyse but by tone and temper, by the manner which is the man himself. - Samuel Butler

Hello all.  Welcome back to the Disciplinary Couples Club.  Our (usually though not always) weekly gathering of men and women who are in, or would like to be in, Domestic Discipline relationships.

 

I hope you all had a great week.  Mine has been pretty relaxed, to a large extent because for the first time in recent history, I finished almost all my Christmas shopping a good two weeks ahead of time and even have most of my wrapping done.  While a wrapping party such as the one below would have been a lot of fun, I did it all myself (thankfully, I have nice relatives who will undoubtedly forgive my sometimes laughably inept effort; hopefully, it is the thought that counts), while binge watching various streaming series on Netflix and HBO.  Is it just me, or is there a huge amount of great content out there right now.  I’m pretty sure I have never watched as much TV in my life as I have in the last couple of months, and I really don’t regret a minute of it.

 

Ironically, while I am as prepared for Christmas as I’ve ever been by this point in the season, the weather is really not cooperating when it comes to imbuing me with the Christmas spirit.  We are in the middle of a drought and haven’t seen measurable snow in a very, very long time.  It’s kind of pissing me off.  Last year, Covid ruined the social aspects of Christmas.  This year, global warming is ruining much of the aesthetic and atmospheric elements I’m used to.  I guess none of this in our near future . . .

I originally thought I might not post this week, as I wasn’t feeling inspired, but then I couldn’t help mulling some of the responses to a post by Hermione over at https://hermionesheart.blogspot.com/ regarding consent or, more specifically, non-consent.  The way she phrased her topic was:

 

While it’s all consensual, some of us like to pretend that spanking or being spanked is not. Is that the case for you? If so, how do you work this out?

 

Language is a funny thing, and context is very often critical.  I had an acting class back in college, and we were required to engage in improv skits, which I found excruciating.  Improv can work well with fluid, flexible actors who are willing and able to take conversational cues.  In fact, the first rule of improv is to always begin by agreeing with the proposition your partner has offered, extending and going off on close tangents from there.  Things can break down in a serious way if one partner simply refuses to engage with the initial proposition, either denying the initial proposed setting or insisting on a one-sided flow.  Tina Fey offers this example: “So if we’re improvising and I say, “Freeze, I have a gun,” and you say, “That’s not a gun. It’s your finger. You’re pointing your finger at me,” our improvised scene has ground to a halt.”

 

Workable (and enjoyable) conversations are kind of like that.  They work well if there is a natural give and take, which often requires assuming that each person kind of knows the gist of what the other person is talking about.  Things can break down very quickly if there isn’t some baseline acceptance of what is being talked about or if one conversational partner insists on an overly literal or idiosyncratic use of terms that are important to the conversation. Or, if conversing with them requires mutually agreeing, in excruciating detail, to the precise meaning of every term under discussion.   

 

An example: If someone asks me what I had for dinner last night and I say, “I went to this great Mexican restaurant. The food was really good,” nine times out of ten the other will respond with something that helps the conversation flow, like: “That’s great.  Where was it? Do they have good margs?”  But, I have this one friend who is from Mexico City.  God forbid the subject of Mexican food comes up around him, because the conversation always seems to go something like this:

 

Him: What did you have do for dinner last night? 

Me: I had Mexican.  It was really good.

Him:  “Oh, did you? Really? Well, as you know I am from Mexico, and most of what you Americans call Mexican isn’t Mexican at all. You tell me what you had, then I’ll tell you whether what you had was Mexican.”

 

Now, the net result is this guy finds himself uninvited anytime a crowd from work decides to go Mexican for lunch.  It’s just too fucking difficult dealing with him on that particular issue, so on Mexican food days he ends up eating alone.

There also are times that people are using the same words but with slightly different, but related, meanings.  There’s even a word for it – polysemy. One example would be the word “man,” which could mean (from Wikipedia):

 

• The human species (i.e., man vs. other organisms) 
• Males of the human species (i.e., man vs. woman 
• Adult males of the human species (i.e., man vs. boy)

 

There’s a related concept called “predicate transfer,” which Wikipedia discusses thusly: 

Another clarification of polysemy is the idea of predicate transfer[18]—the reassignment of a property to an object that would not otherwise inherently have that property. Thus, the expression "I am parked out back" conveys the meaning of "parked" from "car" to the property of "I possess a car." This avoids incorrect polysemous interpretations of "parked": that "people can be parked", or that "I am pretending to be a car", or that "I am something that can be parked". This is supported by the morphology: "We are parked out back" does not mean that there are multiple cars; rather, that there are multiple passengers (having the property of being in possession of a car).

 

Now, in the real world we avoid confusion when using such terms based on people taking cues from the context of the conversation. Further, they don’t violate the context by insisting that their preferred, particular use of a word or phrase is the one and only way to possibly use it even if it isn't how people are likely using it in the actual context of the conversation.  Thus, if I make a general point about "man" as a species and as a whole, it’s going to work fine unless the person I’m talking to insists that I’m being sexist for using the word man to include both males and females or that he or she can’t understand what I’m saying at all unless I first separate the two out and clarify that I am talking about either man as males or, rather, to man in the generic sense. And, the conversation is going to get tedious very quickly if I tell him "I am parked in back" and he keeps insisting that my car may be parked in back but I am right here in front of him and am "pretending" if I think otherwise.

 

What’s any of that have to do with Hermione’s post?  Well, I think the way it was reacted to depended a lot on (a) one’s interpretation of the word “pretend” and how closely that interpretation matched Hermione’s intention in using it, and (b) how literal and exhaustive one insists one’s own definition of “non-consent” must be in order for there to be an intelligent conversation about its possible uses, boundaries and complications.

 

Regarding the former, “pretend” could be used benignly or pejoratively.  In the benign or positive sense, it could entail fantasy, imagination and role play.  For people who are into spanking as a fun, recreational activity, or who use it as “funishment,” asking to what extent you like to pretend that it is non-consensual is benign and seems to be the equivalent of asking to what extent that particular playful element is incorporated into your overall spanking play. That's how I assume Hermione meant it, particularly since her blog is devoted to non-disciplinary, fully consensual spanking play.

 

But, someone could also use "pretend" in a more pejorative sense, equating it with self-deception or living in denial, as in: “Any of you who say your relationship is based on ‘consensual’ non-consent are just pretending or fooling yourself because consent is an absolute, up or down, binary thing and you can always consent on some level.”  Used in that way, "pretend" sounds more like an attack.

 

Now, Hermione has always stated that her blog is about “fun” spankings, even if they may often hurt quite a bit, in all their various forms.  She’s generally not talking about real disciplinary spankings and, when she has had a topic regarding discipline, she’s called it out as such.  She's also a great host who never deliberately excludes any spanking enthusiast or sets out to offend anyone (other than perhaps with her periodic pictures of Walmart shoppers). So, I have no doubt that when she phrased her topic in terms of “pretending,” it was in the context of her usual emphasis on fun spankings that include all sorts of fun elements, including role play or other  imaginative situations in which one or both parties pretend a given spanking wasn’t consensual, either to each other or just in their own minds. Nothing pejorative about it, and I don't think most of it took it any other way. 

 

But, I think there were a couple of comments and further postings that seemed to object to, or ridicule, the concept of wanting something to feel non-consensual and, to the extent possible, to have non-consensual or imposed attributes.  

 

Those who talk about consensual non-consent in the DD context are, I believe, using that concept in a very different context than I think Hermione was using in talking about "pretending" not to consent.  She was talking about fantasy in the context of a relationship in which spanking is an erotic form of play. Those in DD who say their goal is something like "consensual non-consent" or imposed discipline, however, aren’t pretending that there is literal non-consent. 

 

Rather, I think they are talking about genuinely wishing their dynamic could be, to one degree or another, imposed without their consent to the extent practical.  In some ways, I think they are being very genuine and authentic about the motivations underlying their dynamic. They candidly admit what it is they want and then try to adapt their reality to fit that desire, but doing so within the confines of the objective reality of an adult relationship.  (In fact, in eight years of doing this blog, I can think of only one time in which someone seemed to be suggesting that there really was some element of [financial and emotional] force taking place, and I strongly advised them that they needed to seek professional help.)

 

This is where my examples about how improv, and ordinary conversation, fit in. Within the context of the conversations among people practicing DD, I think I generally know what people mean by consensual non-consent or by consenting to the whole relationship but agreeing not to withdraw consent to particular spankings. I also totally get the desire to have discipline imposed, even if there is always some practical ability to resist or refuse. I don't need them to spell out all those qualifiers and implicit presumptions and, in fact, the conversation would get real annoying real quick if they had to do so in order for us to have the conversation at all.  It would look something like:

“I would really like to experience discipline that is non-consensual. By which I mean, it is imposed.  I don’t have to agree to it every time and, in fact, it’s closest to what I want when it is something I really don’t want and would actually really like get out of.  By which I mean, that’s the way it was when I was a kid, and I’d like to experience that again. To be sure, I know that I can’t really do that, because I’m full grown now and could physically resist in a way I couldn’t as a kid.  Yes, I am aware that because I am bigger and stronger than her, on some level I always have the literal ability to object and say no, but to the extent practicable I’m going to try not to that, because it would undermine the dynamic we’d agree to. In fact, she might give up on the dynamic entirely. While I recognize that reality, I don’t really like it and it’s frustrating, but that doesn't mean I'm pretending it doesn't exist.  The best I can come up with is to consent once and then there would be no option of resisting. Yes, I am aware that real life doesn’t work that way, so the best I can do is to agree in advance not to object and do my best to actually keep my work on that.  In our DD community, we refer to that as “consensual non-consent.” 

 

Blah, blah, blah.  Yes, we could laboriously add all that context and qualification, but what the hell would be the point? In this community and context, we all mostly know what someone means when they say they consent to the nature of the spanking relationships but would very much like the spankings to be non-consensual while recognizing, implicitly, the practical real world limitations. Thankfully, there is a form of linguistic common ground that unites those of us in this context that we all recognize, and it works just fine, right up until someone insists on their single, unitary, exclusive, ultra-specific definition.

  

 

Yes, in the real world, it simply isn’t possible to have an irrevocable contract. Although that concept very much exists in the law, what it really means isn’t that there is some force that prevents a party from walking away under any circumstance but, rather, that there will be very unpalatable consequences if the party attempts to revoke and refuses to perform as agreed.  They can always choose not to perform, but the other party can sue them. Then, the court might order them to perform and, if they don’t, they could be held in contempt of court and sent to jail.  It's not that the party can't renege, but rather that there will be hell to pay if they do.  Hell, even in the non-real world it's hard to think of a promise that literally cannot be revoked.  One might use the example of the "unbreakable vow" from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.  But, it wasn't that the unbreakable vow literally could not be broken.Rather, if the vow maker breaks his word, he’ll die. It's about consequences, not literal lack of the ability to choose not to live up to your word. In the real adult world, that's probably about as far as we can go with non-consent.

  

I think we all agree that being physically overpowered and forced to submit is not what anyone means by non-consent in the DD context, and I don't think that needs to be spelled out in excruciating detail every time this subject of consensual non-consent or "pre-consent" comes up.  Some may take things so far as to fantasize about actual coercion, but that probably is an outlier and, whether it is or not, it doesn't make people's attempts to engineer something that feels more imposed some kind of pretense or self-delusion. 

 I do think that some genuinely wish that the disciplinary relationship they have agreed to can be as free from ongoing, tacit consent as possible. I don't think it's an accident that many DD stories, such as many of those on the DWC website, involve the wife initiating the DD relationship with getting any sort of tacit approval from the husband.  In the real world, the best one so inclined can probably do is to approximate truly imposed discipline, but that isn't "pretending." Rather, it is living with what you can get and bending your desires to reality.

 

  

Thankfully, most conversations we have around this stuff are like what happened with respect to most of the comments in response to Hermione’s blog topic.  A couple of us who were in DD dynamics talked about our spin on the issue within our particular dynamic, with neither taking any apparent offense at, or reading anything pejorative into, the particular phrasing she used in describing her topic, including use of the word “pretend.” We got that she was phrasing things as most would within her dynamic (fun or non-disciplinary spanking) and that if we were responding in some idiosyncratic or overly literal way, it was really on us to call that out.   

 

Thankfully, few conversations around this stuff end up with situations like my exchanges with my Mexican friend in which I can’t talk to him about the quality of a particular Mexican food experience unless and until he first insists on defining for me how I am allowed to use the term “Mexican food.” Thankfully, all the other patrons and most potential patrons of that particular category of restaurants know what I’m talking about and we can communicate meaningfully about it.

 

I don’t have any particular topic question in mind for this, so react or not as you please.  I recognize that the whole post probably feels a lot like linguistic masturbation.  Frankly, it probably is, but I was in that kind of mood, probably from streaming too much Sex Education on Netflix, which has loads of real masturbation, among other activities.  If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.  I don’t rank it quite as high as Ted Lasso, but it’s in the same “feel good” space, and I’m trying to consume more of that and less dark and depressing moody stuff. Seems like the right time of year for “peace on earth, good will to men,” with “men” meaning used in the non-gender specific sense of all humankind.  Snow or no snow.