Is there consent?

A wife is hit for the second time in a week by her husband, but when her best friend begs her to leave him, she refuses, saying that she loves her husband and that it is her fault that he is violent with her. Is there consent?

It depends what is going on in the mind of the wife. Is she torn between her compulsion to stay with her husband and her wish not to be abused? If so, in staying with her husband, she is acting against her will – against that part of her will that wants her not to be abused. In this case, whilst she might be deemed to be consenting in the legal sense of the term, she is certainly not consenting in any other sense, and her husband is acting immorally in hitting her.

Conversely, suppose this is a very happy marriage and the wife wholeheartedly prefers the spanking and wishes she could get through to her friend that this is not an abusive situation, this is her husband indulging her desire for a strong, dominant man who isn't afraid to take her in hand now and again. In this case, there is consent and the husband is not acting immorally.

Here is another example:

A couple of lovers are walking along a deserted cliff in the moonlight. They are not speaking, but every now and then, they look at one another and smile. At one point, the man sweeps the woman off her feet literally, and makes love to her. Is there consent?

Again, there is not enough information to go on. There might be, or it there might not be. What is the woman's state of mind? Is she thrilled? Joyful? Happy about it? Or is she horrified? Or in an unpleasant state of turmoil? Does she wish that he had respected her request that he not do anything like that this week? Or is she glad about it?

The most useful sense of the word “consent” for our purposes is moral/psychological consent. Is this really what you want? Are you in conflict? Is that conflict real and distressing to you, or do you see it as an exciting adventure or exploration? Is it something you would really rather not have to endure, or is it actually something you welcome? If you could press a magic button that would instantly stop your husband taking you in hand, would you press it or not? In your heart of hearts, do you actually love what your husband does, or do you wish he did not take you in hand? Have you been longing for a man who would be firm with you and are you overjoyed to have found such a man – or do you long for the day when he will no longer take you in hand?

If you've been having trouble sleeping and you are getting worn out and under the weather, and your husband tells you not to drink coffee after midday, do you find that irritating or controlling? Or if you are honest, do you find it thrilling? If you were single, would you look for a man who never says no, or would you look for another take-charge man? Do you prefer your man to wear the trousers, or is it something you merely put up with? If you were never taken in hand again, would you miss it or would you be glad? Is this what you really want, or something you tolerate?

Notice that whether or not there is consent in the relevant sense hinges on the state of mind of the person consenting. There are other senses of the word “consent” which are not so relevant here, for example, legal consent. It would be a disaster to use the same standard of consent for legal purposes. Legally, it makes sense to err on the side of assuming consent. If a woman goes along with a man's sexual advances, and he has not drugged her or threatened her, etc., the law has to assume that she is consenting. For legal purposes, she cannot reasonably claim rape if she does not at least try to convey her reluctant state of mind to the man. But for our purposes, that is too low a standard of consent.

An honourable man doesn't just want to stay on the right side of the law, he cares about real consent: he wants the reality to be that the woman he is with is genuinely, wholeheartedly, deeply wanting him to do what he is doing. If he thought that she was actually in the same state of mind as a battered wife, he would be appalled. For a decent man, it is not enough to have his wife's “blanket consent”. Even if she has said that she gives him blanket consent, he wants to feel sure that she is truly consenting on an on-going basis. The man who gets his wife's agreement and then doesn't care how she feels thereafter is likely to violate consent and is unlikely to have a good relationship.

In my next article about consent, I talk about the psychology of consensual non-consent. Click here to go to that article now.

the boss

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Have you seen the following articles?
The subjection of women
Power connectivity
Have you found a proper balance?
Trials and errors – appeasement for anger
Moving into a Taken In Hand relationship
The Night Porter: movie review
Women want men who are more dominant
How Sleeping Beauty found her prince
Given a choice between two men ...
What do you mean, you want to be taken in hand?!

2004 Jan 1 - 10:32 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

RE: Is there consent?

A couple of lovers are walking along a deserted cliff in the moonlight. They are not speaking, but every now and then, they look at one another and smile. At one point, the man sweeps the woman off >her feet literally, and makes love to her. Is there consent?

Again, there is not enough information to go on. There might be, or it there might not be. What is the woman's state of mind? Is she thrilled? Joyful? Happy about it? Or is she horrified? Or in an unpleasant state of turmoil? Does she wish that he had respected her request that he not do anything like that this week? Or is she glad about it?
-----
I will give the Christian world view in regards to the above situation. If the couple is not married there should be NO sexual relations at this point.

If the couple is married, although the woman is to be in submission to her man, in the case of sexual relations within the husband/wife matrimony there must be mutual submission. Let me explain:

Ephesians 5:31 (KJV) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Yes, the man and the woman are one flesh with the man as the head,
just as Jesus is the Head of the "cooperate body of Christ", In both
cases the illustration of chain of command are evident.

Ephesians 5:21 (KJV) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

As for both being in subject to one another, this is in regards to 1
Corinthians 7:4,5

1 Corinthians 7:4 (KJV) The wife hath not power of her own body, but
the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own
body, but the wife.
1 Corinthians 7:5 (KJV) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be
with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and
prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your
incontinency.

BOTH the husband and the wife, must submit to one another regarding
sexual relations towards one another, unless abstinence has been
agreed upon by both parties.

Also, another theological point of Ephesians 5:21 Paul will show how, in each relationship, the partners can have a conciliatory attitude that will help that relationship. I will state what my Professor claims regarding Ephesians 5:21

"This is a special application of the Christian grace of submission,
it is introduced by this general exhortation to mutual submissiveness.
Christians should not be self-assertive, each "insisting on getting
his or her own way". They should be humble enough to count others
better than themselves and put the interest of others before their
own, following the example of Christ." To lead, but to lead with a
humble and loving heart, not discounting the one whom is your
subordinate.

I would also like to take a moment to introduce my best friend. His name is Jesus Christ and he has changed my life.
Romans 10:9 (KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 (KJV) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If you'd like to find out more about him, buy a King James Bible and start with the book of John...

Grace and Peace to you all...

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2004 Jan 1 - 17:20 | login or register to post comments

Wrong forum for proselytizing...

Argh! What a wonderfully thoughtful article, the boss -- and what a dreadfully inappropriate comment -- every bit as inappropriate as someone using this space to advertize vacuum cleaners or Viagra.

Allah u akhbar, Shalom and U Mane Padme Hum and a wonderful New Year to all.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2004 Jan 2 - 00:07 | login or register to post comments

Frank Nelson

>The most useful sense of the word “consent” for our purposes is >moral/psychological consent.

This subject of consent is always one which I find fascinating. It seems to me that we have bascially two different kinds of Consent which I describe briefly as 'selective' consent regarding the physical acts permissable. We spank as a selective consent, agreed upon before hand usually with reference to the kinds of implements, severity, etc, which can be used. any other specific behavior we choose I refer to as 'selective consent.'

A more important kind of consent is, I think, what is meant by 'moral/psychological' consent. I understand this consent as deriving from the relationship between people, intimate consent that develops and grows over time. This is where another question comes up: The question of Intent. How do we change the quality of Consent whne we change the quality of Intent? For example, if our mutual intent is to enrich our intimacy then this consent resembles something like a biblical description of mutual submission as both partenrs must give this very real consent to become one in the realtionship fabric. But what happens if the intent of one or the other is control such as in abusive relationships?

An example is given in the article when the husband is abusive (i.e. hitting his wife to supposedly control her behavior...she 'deserves' it after all) and the intent of the wife at least ostensibly is to 'do better' so she her husband won't hit her again. Her intent is connection and his intent is to gain power and control. These are diametrically opposed intentions, unworkable simply because it is not possible with whatever force to gain control over the free will of another. But what about the consent?

Relationship is about connection but our relationship is indifferent to its connections. As an entity, relationship will gain connection in any way it can. This, I believe, is why many women will stay in abusive relationships long after it should be clear it is abusive, because abuse is also a form of connection. Connection is not always about gaining intimacy but connection absolutely requires some form of consent. Not legal, not moral, but the kind of indifferent consent that binds people in absolutely corrupt situations. As individuals, we can break off any consent we wish, of course, because there is no power in the universe that can ever defeat a human soul. Not even God can act for Intimate Connection without consent.

What happens when the intent of the woman is something other than enriching intimacy in some form of a DD relationship? What happens if she wants to be taken care of as a child, what happens if she views her behavior as the only source of marriage problems? What happens if her first intention is not to enrich her marriage? It is easy to see what happens if the man wants power and control, but what happens if the submissive partner is trying to gain power and control by selectively specifiying the behavior of her partner, wanting him to control her against his 'real will?' What about the quality of consent of the dominant partner? What if he wants intimacy and an enriched marriage and she wants only to be told what to do' when that telling is based or founded on her own fears or hangups?

Is this any more sustainable in domestic discipline?

Frank

by Frank Nelson on 2004 Jan 2 - 00:56 | login or register to post comments

Intent is at the heart of the matter

Frank, your thoughtful comments, as always, reveal another aspect of the situation. Even as we (Men) administer our attentions to our partners, it is worth asking whether we are giving them what they need or what we *believe* they want; and in the act of giving, what was our real purpose in the exercise...our Intent?

Is there a harmful effect if there is a difference in Intent between the partners, even if both seem to get what they want from the arrangement? I think there can be a sense of mutual satisfaction, but I suppose the real limitation is that there may be less new knowledge being *shared* if each person is merely gaining what they (as individuals) wanted/needed from the event.

This comes back to the level or depth of the connection and ability to communicate openly to each other, but this is usually the limiting factor in any relationship. To be able to let go and give voice to feelings that might be mere abstract concepts of a very personal nature can be too much for some people to share with another human being. The best time for this communication may well be during the afterglow of the activity, especially if it was followed by sex so that the more open and relaxed and honest/trusting atmosphere can allow partners to understand the Intent of the other and whether they have moved closer to that goal or are drifting farther away (or whether there has been a real change developing).

The very fact that I cannot foresee a battered wife successfully explaining to her abusive husband how his violence affects her sense of self (outside of a court appointed counseling session),

makes the difference between people who subscribe to the ideas presented here on Taken In Hand stand out in stark contrast to the abusive relationship. There is *real* communication happening when a woman asks her man to take her in hand...at least the door is opened; it's up to the partner to ask questions to ensure that consent is there and to determine the Intent of the other person so that they can form their own Intent where there was none before (with regards to DD). Perhaps it is the adjustments made to our overall Intent towards our partner that we are dealing with here. If your Intent is to love your partner and do all within your power to keep them safe from harm, you have to decide what you consider *harm* to be.

I feel we have an innate desire to help someone we care about move closer to happiness even if we cannot deliver a complete solution for them, so the idea is that adjustments can be made in our own Intent in order to improve the chances of both parties getting what they want from a shared activity and creating a more successful experience all around. Reluctance to discuss or modify Intent is likely to limit the growth of the relationship.

Howard Frank

by Howard Frank on 2004 Jan 2 - 20:43 | login or register to post comments

"dear g-d, save me from your followers"

The Bible thumper says, :
Christians should not be self-assertive, each "insisting on getting

his or her own way". They should be humble enough to count others

better than themselves and put the interest of others before their

own, following the example of Christ."
================================

Hmm, you seem pretty quick to assert your religious propaganda upon others without consent, which doesn't strikes me as particularly humble. Did you even read the boss's article? Did you put the boss's discussion on consent to use of force before your interest in imposing your christian ethic and world view?

I would practice religious tolerance, but to remain silence would mean that I have consented for you to pollute the non-religious site with your religious propaganda. Consider this my practical view on what constitute a "consent."

-sudolly
-----------------------------
the belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche

by sudolly on 2004 Mar 8 - 05:32 | login or register to post comments

RE: Is there consent?

I just thought I would note that I have found some christian and muslim web sites that do endorse this lifestyle. I found it very interesting to say the least. I have even found a site where the partners both get spanked by each other; that was quite interesting as well.

I am a follower of Jesus, but not religious at all. However I do wrestle within my faith about all my desires. I still believe that this would be right for me and my H, and I believe this lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on our lives.

Note: I don't agree with forcing personal religious beliefs on others who have no desire to hear. That to me, is not a very good witness, and for the person writing that reply, they have violated a biblical principle anyway, by showing arrogance, which is definately not a trait of humility. It is embarrassing to me. I apologize for that person.

I believe that what happens between two people in their most intimate times should not be judged by anyone. We all deserve to be happy in our relationhips. I have been told all my life (by those arrogant religious types) that anything erotic is sinful, even between huysband and wife! I was messed up for years, living in denial of who I really am. I have come to the conclusion that if we would all be honest and true to our nature, that the word "denial" would not have been made as popular as it is these days.

I would willingly consent in a heartbeat for my H to adopt this lifestyle in our relationship. There is much more than simply consenting to a spanking. For me, it would be consenting also to his COMPLETE leadership and authority in which spanking is the main physical element, but there are mental considerations for me as well, that's what I have learned so far in my journey into dicovering this lifestyle.

I appreciate this article because it touched on something my H said about me getting mad at him should he decide to spank me hard or something, and calling the town police. He knows I would never do that though, but he keeps finding excuses. I will let him go through every single excuse he finds until he completely exhausts the excuse bank, and then has to make a decision on this issue for our lives. He knows me well enough to know that when I don't want to consent to something, I express it very clearly.

I read something on another site about non-consensual consent. I was thinking that that may be how it is for some in this lifestyle, no? This consent stuff can be a bit confusing for a newbie, that's for sure.

Elizabeth, a DD hopeful at this point...

by Elizabeth on 2004 Mar 26 - 20:32 | login or register to post comments

Christian Lust

I don't understand how some Christian denominations have developed this theory that ALL sex is bad, and ALL lust is bad. This makes no sense at all. I won't go into scripture and verse, but according to my understanding, a man and his wife become ONE FLESH in marriage, a bonding that surpasses any other human relationship. If the spouses are TRULY bonded in this manner, how can they NOT lust for each other?

Paul writes in one of his epistles something mildly condescending about appeasing one's lust by getting married if that lust is difficult to control. He seems to have a somewhat negative attitude toward marriage but is tolerant of it because of his views on how lust should be dealt with.

Then, of course, there is the "Song of Solomon" or "Song of Songs", depending on which Bible you use, that seems to me like an open celebration of the lust between a man and his wife, deepened and enhanced by their love for each other.

Bottom line; lust is natural, and spouses who are truly bonded in a Christian marriage should enjoy those feelings between themselves, free of any imaginary guilt.

KrosRogue

by KrosRogue on 2004 Mar 27 - 07:57 | login or register to post comments

An eminent anti-sex Christian

I don't feel like re-reading Paul's epistles, but I do vaguely remember that he was really quite anti-sex, including within marriage, I thought. Actually, you can see that in the bits quoted above. His attitude seems to be that you can have sex occasionally to banish those evil thoughts from your mind for a while. Not exactly the most enthusiastic way of looking at these things, is it?!

It seems to me that there is a bit of a conflict about this, with some Christians throwing the baby out with the bathwater and taking the view that sex is evil even within marriage. It doesn't help that popes and priests often say rather awful things. For example, Pope John Paul II said: “Adultery is in your heart when you look with excessive sexual zeal at a woman who is not your wife, but also if you look in the same way at your wife.”

I conclude that there is no way to have a sin-free marriage which is any fun. Remaining single is the only moral course, obviously.

(Do I have to mention that that comment of mine was not entirely serious?)

by the boss on 2004 Mar 27 - 09:03 | login or register to post comments

Excessive Sexual Zeal

I have difficulty understanding why the Pope would say such a thing in regard to one's wife. Was it a response to a question or a statement within a speech?

Regarding Paul; I think he regarded anything non-spiritual to be sinful, but I think he expressed that as opinion rather than established doctrine. He said it was best to remain a virgin and have no sexual life at all, let alone allow any other physical pleasures, simply because any pleasure interfered with spiritual thought. He gave the impression, though, that it could be a lifestyle choice to live such a Spartan existence, and one should try to live that way if there was sufficient strength to do so. I don't think most people have the fortitude or desire to subsist in that manner.

I also don't think most people SHOULD have such fortitude and desire, either. That would conflict with another commandment, namely, "Go forth and multiply", have children. In those days, that was impossible without sex. Sex requires lust. Lust has its place in marriage. That being the case, forbidding lust in marriage is not only irrational, but also counterproductive.

KrosRogue

by KrosRogue on 2004 Mar 27 - 10:56 | login or register to post comments

the boss writes:I don't feel lik

the boss writes:

I don't feel like re-reading Paul's epistles, but I do vaguely remember that he was really quite anti-sex, including within marriage, I thought. Actually, you can see that in the bits quoted above. His attitude seems to be that you can have sex occasionally to banish those evil thoughts from your mind for a while. Not exactly the most enthusiastic way of looking at these things, is it?!
This is pretty much an area of expertise for me and I come to a very different conclusion about Paul's writings. My own feelings about the importance of always being sexually available to my husband are primarily based on what Paul wrote in ICorinthians 7:

A man should fulfill his duty as a husband and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife and each should satisfy each other's needs. The wife is not the master of her own body, but the husband is; in the same way the husband is not the master of his own body but his wife is. Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless first you agree to do so for a while, in order to spend your time in prayer, but then resume normal realtions to keep you from giving in to Satan's temptation because of your lack of self-control.

There is a general consensus among Scripture scholars that Paul was writing under the assumption that the second coming of Christ would happen at any moment. In this context, his lack of enthusiasm for marriage is seen as discouraging a short-term arrangement that isn't worth the bother, rather than being anti-sex. When people are married, he is clear that they ought to being having sex with each other. It is their duty. The only circumstances under which he allows for married couples to avoid sex is if they both consent and if it is for a short time.

JK

by LadyK on 2004 Mar 27 - 22:53 | login or register to post comments

Pope quote

the boss wrote,

For example, Pope John Paul II said: “Adultery is in your heart when you look with excessive sexual zeal at a woman who is not your wife, but also if you look in the same way at your wife.”
Do you know where this quote is taken from? I've been wanting to look at it in context but haven't been able to find anyone who gives a source for it. I've turned up people who attribute it to the pope but they don't say where he said it.

JK

by LadyK on 2004 Mar 28 - 02:00 | login or register to post comments

Tracking down the pope quote

The boss has not answered my question, so I have been trying to track the source of the alleged statement by Pope John Paul II that “Adultery is in your heart when you look with excessive sexual zeal at a woman who is not your wife, but also if you look in the same way at your wife.”

I have not been able to find references to "excessive sexual zeal" in any official Catholic documents. However, I have found statements by the pope about a man being able to commit "adultery in his heart" even toward his own wife. These statements occurred in a series of talks early in the papacy that were on the theme of marriage. These talks were not anti-sex. In them, the pope gives a high value to the sex act between husband and wife. It is an expression of love through total self-giving. It is a physical enactment of their spiritual and emotional union. It reveals the nature of God.

The pope writes of the attraction between men and women as a good thing, yet one that has been compromised by sin. Instead of the total self-giving that it ought to be, sex becomes contaminated by selfishness. There is a tendency to use the other as an object rather than seeing the other as a person to whom one generously gives oneself. When people give in to this tendency, it destroys the deep unity that ought to be expressed by sex. Just as physical adultery refers to acts that go against the unity that should exist for the married couple, "adultery of the heart" refers to attitudes that harm this unity. The pope is saying that even people who are married to each other can have attitudes that harm their unity. The pope is saying that viewing one's spouse as an object for one's sexual pleasure is wrong in the same way that adultery is wrong. He is not saying that sex is bad.

If anyone is interested in seeing the pope's own words on this, here is a link:

http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/ga80oct13.html

JK

by LadyK on 2004 Mar 30 - 19:29 | login or register to post comments

Loveless "One-Night Stand" Mentality

This seems to be another case of semantics and misunderstanding, at least for me. I don't see how the Pope can call an action between a man and his wife "adultery", but I think I see his take on loveless or objectified sex. It appears as though he redefines "adultery" to mean "using someone for self-gratification". What he doesn't say is that this form of usage is gutter-level abuse, which is what I personally believe, and amounts to using the other person's body as a masturbation device.

This form of abuse is commonplace these days, and most folk don't realize it. This practice is most often referred to as the "One-Night Stand".

KrosRogue

by KrosRogue on 2004 Mar 31 - 06:05 | login or register to post comments

RE: Loveless "One Night Stand" mentality

The Pope was trying to make the point that married people can have bad attitudes to sex too. Some people think that once you are married then anything goes. He was saying that it is wrong to be selfish and make your partner an object, married or not. Perhaps talking about "adultery in the heart" is not the clearest way to do this. Still, I found his meaning fairly clear when taken in context. It is when the statement is in isolation that it is so confusing.

I really liked what he was saying about sex as a total gift of self. Perhaps because I am a submissive that phrase struck a chord with me.

JK

by LadyK on 2004 Mar 31 - 15:24 | login or register to post comments

Bar Room Pickup and Loveless Marriage

I won't quibble about the Pope's use of the word "adultery" differing from mine, but a phrase taken out of context like that does distort his meaning.

The "bad attitude toward sex" in marriage is in essence what I mean by the "One-Night Stand" mentality. It can and does exist not only in a bar room pickup scenario, but also in quite a number of marriages. I think that is a part of what causes the relationships to go stale. When one or both persons feel used and there is no expression of connective love, everything becomes mechanical just to satisfy an urge.

KrosRogue

by KrosRogue on 2004 Apr 2 - 07:21 | login or register to post comments

Is there consent?

I enjoyed your example about the man telling the woman not to drink coffee after midday because it makes her sleep badly at night. I think that is an example of the sort of thing that I would find sexy, because it would be a case of the man caring about me. A similar situation in my own life is reading in the car. I read constantly and obsessively, everywhere I am, but I was cursed by a bad fairy at birth who makes me get sick every time I read in the car for more than a couple of minutes. So if we're on a long journey and I get bored and start reading and my husband says "DON'T read in the car" in that forceful tone of voice i find that very sexy because he's showing concern for me (also, I suppose, he doesn't want vomit all over his upholstery). However, it goes so far and no further, if he tried to stop me doing something I REALLY wanted to do, there would be a hell of a row, like for instance if he tried to stop me reading anywhere other than in the car. I can go so far but no further, I am temperamentally unable to take the plunge that some Taken In Hand commentators seem to be able to, and become totally submissive. Actually I don't want to be. I think. Probably not. Maybe. Definitely not. Probably.

by Louise C on 2004 Jun 22 - 15:56 | login or register to post comments

And the Two Become One

Kat

Just a quick comment concerning christian marriage. It is true that when a Christian man and woman wed "The two become one". My husband and I are christians and there is a very strong bond between us. As I have understood concerning lust is that we should not lust after others besides our spouse. When I look at my husband Iove to look at him , I adore being with him every minute. He is the love of my life and I only have eyes for him.

by Kat on 2004 Sep 28 - 23:12 | login or register to post comments

Sex is evil

Since God created the sex drive, to call the drive itself evil is sin; not the using of it, of course.

Paul was driving at the danger of sex, not its intrinsic value.

These readers are inventing theology.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Nov 8 - 22:38 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.