Quote Originally Posted by delia View Post
The problem with the term "consensual nonconsent" is that it is implying the negative--that you are consenting to the inability to consent. Which is a wordsmithing way to say you are consenting to having no say. The reality is that it flat out isn't realistic. You are ALWAYS making choices--even when you choose not to make a choice, that's a choice in & of itself. Unless your brain is ripped out, your cognitive functions continually make decisions between A & B-- it's just the way animals are.

As for your question about Old Guard. MasterDragon hit the nail on the head in terms of what Old Guard really is & really stands for. It has nothing to do with play, which is why you have such a hard time finding useful information on it. The current trend & "revolution" of BDSM has landed BDSM more mainstream because it's tended to shy away from the extreme edges of Old Guard & its historical roots & more towards the masses. Old Guard, as MD noted, was all about tradition, mentoring, knowledge. Things are passed down from one Dominant to another, from sub to sub. It's more of a culture, an ethos. It's about understanding your role & place in the greater structure, and understanding the world's interactions with you.

Having babbled enough about that...
Old Guard has no such thing as "consensual nonconsent" in its dicta or tradition. It's built on the notion, as MD mentioned, that you don't break your toys--you treat your property with respect and you treat others' property with respect. What Old Guard calls a submissive, would in "new terminology", now be loosely be defined as a slave. What Old Guard considers a bottom is now what many submissives are. It's partially just a terminology gap, and partially it's an end of a BDSM era as the mainstream BDSM culture starts to shift to the left. It isn't a bad thing, it just *is*. It's harder to find true-type Old Guard & Old School folks now & will continue to be because there is an ever shrinking community from which to learn such tradition. You can't be true-type Old School unless you were trained by an Old School Dominant--why? Because by definition, that's what Old School is. Again, it's also why it is dying off so fast--because there are fewer & fewer trained Old School Dominants & submissives around. But they know eachother when they see eachother. It's a thing you just learn how to observe.

That all being said...

Call yourself whatever you want--if calling yourself a consensual non-consent slave/sub/whatever and it works for you, then great. If you like that label for yourself, use it. It doesn't matter where it comes from---or even if you make it up---it just matters if it works for you... those who know/understand what you want/are will know & inquire... those who don't were never meant to cross paths with you anyway...

Just my two cents as always...

As for what I describe myself as... *shrugs* if you want to know, just ask.
Well, ok... I'm willing to accept that my info regarding it being an Old Guard term may well be incorrect. As I said, I couldn't fully remember and that's why I wanted input.

However, I have to disagree with you on the "negative" concept of consentual nonconsent. What I believe you are saying is that it is a negative sounding term to many because of the implication of a lack of ability to consent or not. However, isn't that merely a matter of perspective, delia? I mean... that is precisely what it means at least in my relationship, but I don't view that as a negative... it is that very thing that makes me feel safe, secure and truly owned.

I also very much disagree with the idea that this can not really exist. Allow me to explain... the whole concept is based around agreeing all at once to anything that may occur in the future. So the slave is agreeing that if at any time in the future they were to resist anything which they had previously consented to- even if that consent was given years before- that their Master does have the right to ignore any objection and even use significant force in order to accomplish whatever act they wished the slave the perform or have exacted upon them. You seem to be saying that a slave can always change their mind down the line making it meaningless... however, that is precisely what this term and usage of consent is designed to eliminate- the possibility of changing their mind. Honestly, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about removing your own choices for the future in one big life-changing decision.

I do understand why most people would be unwilling to agree to unknown possibilities at an unknown time in the future and that is fine. However, just because it is not for most people... it isn't fair to say that it is negative. Also, because something is difficult to understand... and I admit, this is... doesn't make it nonexistent. It does not make it invalid. I will say though that enforcing this consent comes down to "how far is the slave willing to go to avoid what they had already agreed to?" as well as "how far is the master willing to go to enforce the previous consent?" Those are questions that no one can answer but the individuals involved in every individual relationship.