Generational Armageddon: Teenagers are the End of the World

    In the news, in the break-room, wherever adults gather to trade information; sooner or later the subject of the young ones coming into adulthood will come up.  It will come up, and it is the end of the world as we know it.  They have no respect, they don't know how good they have it, they don't understand what they are doing, and they are destroying their lives before they've even begun.

    In cafeterias, coffee shops, fast food places, and wherever else the young have claimed as theirs for the moment to sit and discuss the world; sooner or later the subject of what a sorry state it is in will come up.  The need for change of how the world is run will be discussed; the end of the world as we know it so that a new world can be born.

    In some symbolic traditions Death has a very interesting meaning.  That symbolic meaning is change that requires one thing to end for another to begin.  In these symbolic systems, Death is one of the few symbols that can always be seen as positive.  In these symbolic systems, this type of change is also the one that is met with the most fear and anxiety.

    In the Christian Bible, there is one book that is hardest to interpret, fascinating for many, but most frightening in it's imagery to most.  This is the book of Revelation.  It is filled with destruction, death, and change.  It also has the triumphant return of Christ in all of his glory and the promised Kingdom of God on earth.

    Every generation looks at the way that the next generation is changing everything they have built and can see the world as they know it ending.  Every generation looks at a world they are born into, and envisions a new world they can build.  Every generation sees the symbols of Revelation and interprets them in their times to see that the world is ending.  Maybe one generation some day, the youth will truly end the world for good.  Maybe some day the symbols of Revelation will play out for the final time and there will be no further improvement for the next generation.

     For now, every generation tears down some of what has been built before and builds up something new.  We work to tear out the darkness in the world and build the City of God on earth.  Sometimes we come closer than others.  Every generation has change though, every generation tries with greater or lesser success to learn from those before them, every generation has taxes, and every generation dies.  Every generation has their Revelation, and for them the world ends as they know it so that they may enter the Kingdom of God.

(Re-posted from a prior blog written by this author under another name. Originally posted on 5/1/2012)

Unexpected Salvation: Age of Ishtar part 7

As Skye was spiraling deeper into realization of his inevitable doom, someone approached from behind. Semias walked past him to his sister Evangeline and bowed his silver mane before her. "Lady Evangeline Dumas, Milady Estelle Montoya of the Grigori stable has sent a message with me," He began, "First; she would like to congratulate you on your brother. She has found him rather impressive. Second, she and others have talked with the Matron of the Games who has decided that the degree of interest he's attracted justifies giving him a private auction tonight while interest is still fresh. The Matron of the Games thinks it'll better serve your interests in allowing the buyers to bid while still excited, and better serve the other sellers by not putting them in as much direct competition with your brother at the public auction tomorrow night (there's a fear that he may lower the rest of the market).  Also, many of the buyers have let her know they're rather impatient to get at him.  Anyways, the Matron said she herself would be willing to act as auctioneer if you're agreeable to proceeding."

Everyone looked to Evangeline while she considered. "I do not see any good reason why we should not proceed with the auction immediately if it is in such high demand," She responded after a short deliberation, "If I might ask though, why were you sent instead of a representative of the Matron of the Games?"

"Well, Milady and some of her investors were of the more vocal in asking for the earlier time, and they didn't want to wait for the Matron to send for her own messenger or summon you herself when I was already there."

"As well they should Semias," one of the investors who had been listening to Evangeline interjected, "Estelle is right to speak so highly of your utility. There may not be anything a man can do that the right woman could not do better if she put her mind to it, but it is just so much more convenient at times to just let the man. Plus, they are just so adorable when they find themselves to be useful."

"Thank you kindly," Semias bowed with a faint smile, "I'm sure Milady appreciates your support as always. If we're going to get this started, then could you ladies and Skye please follow me?"

Semias gave a hand signal to someone on the far side of the hall and an obviously aged woman began walking up the platform where the band was playing. As they walked down the stairs the band stopped playing and she introduced herself as the Matron of the Games that had been played yesterday. She announced that it had been decided that the auction for Skye Dumas would be held presently. She then requested the clearing of the front of the dance floor except of those who had an intention of bidding on the young man to be sold and their attached parties. It's a toss up which is harder to move through: a crowd that is relatively static and thus has few paths through it, or one that has had a shift in its attention and thus took on the appearance of a kicked ants nest in slow motion.
Slowly they made it to the stage, and Semias patted Skye on the back as he went to find where Estelle would be situating herself for the bidding. Skye and Evangeline climbed the stage and Skye did his best to quiet his racing mind and present himself as best he could. He shut out the entire world except for his breathing and the path he was walking. Not every eye in the hall was on him. There were no eyes, and there was no hall. There was only the air and the stage he was walking on. Everything else was unimportant. What if Kukri was watching him? No, no distracting thoughts. He was a young and beautiful god of war with the deadly grace of a slithering viper, but the calm inevitability of glacial ice. Nothing could be allowed to break that, not even the screaming of his heart.

He did not search for her face as he posed while his sister listed and described his achievements and marketable qualities. He surveyed the crowd coolly and calmly.  He wasn't looking at any of them; his eyes were kept dreamily unfocused. He can't let her in his mind like this, it was just one dance, and it was just one kiss. This was the most important night yet of his nineteen years. This was the night where it would be decided who would be the woman to own him. This was the night where he would finally find out how much he was worth according to the most honest and heartless appraiser of all: the open market. Tonight would set the path for the rest of his life.  Tonight, if he sold well, he could do one last thing as his mothers ward. He could bring in a good return on her investment. Evangeline rose to a crescendo in her description of how wonderful, life changing, and multifunctional of a product he was.  She brought it to a climax of, "He can be yours and yours alone; forever or until you sell him for a profit. Ladies start your biding!"

Gladys Minuet, the Matron of the Games, started the biding low. She started out at half of his most recent appraised price. Bids flew from the right and left. They climbed higher and higher. In just the first little bit they rose past his appraised price with seven bidders staying active. Skye tried not to look at who was bidding. He tried to just keep moving from pose to pose. He couldn't stop himself from looking for Estelle Montoya and her daughters once the bidding began to slow around twice his appraised price. She was still bidding; Kris was standing right beside her with a small huddle of investors around them. Kukri sulked at the edge of the group while her father seemed to be trying unsuccessfully to cheer her up. There were three other bidders still active at that point. The two mega stable representatives seemed uncertain whether they were trying to get Skye for themselves or just keep the other from getting him, and one of the women he barely remembered from the group around Evangeline seemed less and less certain how much she wanted him. Skye turned his back to the audience, flexed everything he could, and the woman whose name he could not remember shot her hand up to bid again.

Around two and a half times the price on his last appraisal both of the mega stable representatives dropped out. It had gotten too rich for either of their tastes, but once the Horde representative dropped out the woman from Legion seemed to decide she had no good reason to continue. It was down to the last two bidders; Estelle Montoya and the woman who Skye could not for the life of him remember the name of. By this time Skye was definitely getting into his little display he was doing on the stage to entice the bidding higher. His body was glistening from the poses and gyrations he was moving through to show all the assets he could in the best possible light. Skye was mentally cursing Kayvan for putting the restriction on what postures he could display by injuring his arm. Then again, Kayvan and the four others Kayvan had fought were dead and he just had a hurt arm. Skye had gotten by far the better end of that deal.

After the price passed the point of three times his appraised value, the woman whose name he did not know went to raise her hand again. One of her friends had walked forward from the crowd and whispered something in her ear, however. She gave him one more wistful glance and stepped back into the crowd. The Grigori investors were ecstatic. They were jumping up and down, hugging one another, and cheering.  Kris and Estelle looked overjoyed, and Kukri looked as if she was going to be sick.

Skye was completely uncertain what he was getting into, but he was certain he had sold for more than double the price he had hoped he might go for. He didn't know why his mother didn't want him any more, or why she had wanted him in the first place. This would make her proud, though. It was the last thing he would do as her ward, but he had done well. Of course, he couldn't take all the credit. Evangeline had been amazing. She had taken him from being an unknown rookie, almost undifferentiable from any other gladiator in the games who was up for sale, and had raised him to the level of buyers clamoring for a private auction on the spot. She was a lecherous drunk, but she was an amazing lecherous drunk. He had gone for over three times his appraisal price. That only tended to happen when there were several large factors the appraiser had overlooked or the bidders were somehow whipped into a mad frenzy for the man on the block. Skye didn't know of any large factors that would have kept his appraisal artificially low, so mass hysteria was the only good explanation.

Evangeline was hugging him, she was actually crying. She was saying how proud of him she was, how well he had done, and how she hoped she would be able to see him often. "Clarence and you do play together so well," she repeated with a light tinge of red to the whites of her eyes, "I love you baby brother, we all do. You know that don't you? I know some of our sisters may show it in ways that are hard to see, and mother may have kept you at arms reach recently, but we all love you and hope to see you whenever possible. Even if we don't see one another often, make sure to write, and we'll do our best to write as well. Especially remember Cleo, she may not remember to keep up contact very well, but she has always been so fond of you and it means so much to her whenever she hears from you."

Skye hugged his sister back with his good arm, tears welling up in his eyes. His voice trembled, "I will, I love you all too. I have the best family in all the worlds. Thank you. Thank you for being here for me. It's meant so much to have you here.  Thank you."

After a few moments they released their embrace. Estelle was up on the stage. She began working out with Evangeline how his belongings would be picked up and signing transfer of guardianship papers. Semias was soon by his side welcoming him to the stable. Evidently, they had acquired a series of barracks trailer modules when they moved their formal residence to this region. When they traveled, instead of packing up on a passenger craft, they would just be hauled to their destination by a bulk cargo ship, train, tractor craft, or even any interplanetary standard intermodal transport (ISIT) without ever having to leave their new home. "They still need a lot of work done," Semias warned, "But, when they are finished, they will be quite the cozy little mobile home."

Kris ran up smiling, "I couldn't have hoped for a better reaction between you and my sister. That was amazing the way you were on the dance floor with her. I am so glad we got you."

"If you don't mind the observation," Skye responded confusedly, "She ran away from me and looks less than pleased that your mother won the auction."

"Oh, she's just worried because there is no way Cathy will approve of you."  Kris brushed his concerns aside.

"Who's Cathy?"

"Cathy," Semias answered with a grimace, "Is Kukri's fiancé."

What makes a human a human? Reproductive universal solvency.

    One common challenge of writing Sci-fi or fantasy is the addition of the multitude of humanoids. Elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, vampires, werewolves, gods, grays, space elves, space orcs (some of whom are spelled with a K), shape changers, clones, sasquaches, warrior teddy bears, and a thousand other humanoids start filling your worlds quickly. It soon becomes hard to find a definable trait that makes the humans human. Elves are long lived, gracefull, wise, magical versions of humans.  Orcs are big, strong, brutal versions of humans. Grays are little super intelligent versions of humans. Gods are super powered humans.

    Often this isn't much of a problem because the humanoids are either rare or divided away from the humans, but eventually there comes the question, If all of these humanoids are unique, what is the human uniqueness?Compared to the elves it is often our vitality and intensity that is pointed to. Compared to orcs it is our stability and rationality that sets us apart. Compared to robots we are shown to be flexible and compassionate. Compared to a bestial species we are intelligent but weak. Each description of humans is just the description of the other race in inverse, which is natural since we are the baseline from which they are described. In games humans are often the best generalists. We aren't the best at anything in that setup, but we are rather good at everything. Other settings make us the most varied and versatile. I guess that works, but it kind of feels like a cheap answer to me.

    One tendency of humans, in myth as well as fiction, I have noticed is that we are portrayed as a genetic universal solvent. We are shown as being able to mix with anything. This is even being found in real world anthropology. It was long assumed that whenever homo-sapiens entered an area with other hominids, such as neanderthals, that the hominids were killed off. We now are finding that we just interbred with them and assimilated their genes. To use the phrase from the Star Trek Borg, "Resistance is futile."

    No matter how much enmity there is between two groups of humans, if it is at all possible for them to genetically intermix, they will. It takes incredible social and religious pressures to convince people not to go sleeping on the other side of the tracks, and often those pressures just make it more tempting to do so. If you think your heritage is entirely just one race, it is possible you may be right; but it is much more likely you just don't know your family tree as well as you think. Myths are full of heroes, monsters, gods, and goddesses who sprung from something more or less than human joining with a human. The best known Vulcan from Star Trek was half human. Aragon from Lord of the Rings was part elf. In folklore vampires that impregnate a living woman result in a dhampyr. Hercules and Perseus were half god. The Spartans considered themselves the descendants of Hercules. Countless rulers claimed to be direct descendants of one god or another. Those who believe they have been abducted by aliens often say they were impregnated and gave birth while on the ship. Even men who claim to be abducted sometimes say they carried a child, and, on the whole, we tend to primarily discount the notion of their abduction and seem almost accepting of the idea that if there were near humans out there, even a lack of a womb couldn't stop us from having their babies.

    Biology of whether humans and humanoids could actually reproduce aside, as it seems millennia of audiences take the possibility as a given, there is also the factor that humans would at least try to reproduce with anything. Any one individual human might not be tempted by any given creature, but somewhere out there is someone who will do anything to be with them in a reproductive way. If you have any doubts as to what some people can find attractive, you haven't spent much time on the parts of the internet where they don't block the icky stuff. Some people's ideal romantic partner isn't even humanoid; or plausible under our understanding of physics. If we ever make first contact or discover the entrance to Tyr Na Nog; whatever shape those we meet take, someone of our species will be chomping at the bit to welcome their genes into our pool.

    Really, if you think about it though, that isn't too bad of a trait for a species. Being able to pull the genes of other humanoids into our collective would be likely to have innumerable positive results as time went on. I think it would be cool for my descendants to have super cool magic powers or alien abilities. Also, hidden world fantasy becomes much more plausible under the assumption that long ago all the supernatural people interbred with us. Colonization of distant worlds becomes much more interesting if we integrate with the natives instead of fighting them.

Make love, not war.

(Repost from a prior blog, written and posted by this author, under a different name, on 12/6/2011)

Why is Protectiveness Seen as Dominant?

As I have mentioned in a prior post, I am at the early stages of exploring my local BDSM community. I am thereby being heavily motivated to explore, online and otherwise, many aspects of this culture that I am becoming involved in. I have found many things that I have definite questions about why certain actions and feelings are assumed to belong to one side or the other of the various complementary roles found in BDSM. In particular, many of the traits that seem to be attributed as dominant or submissive seem counter-intuitive to me.

The trait that I wish to discuss today, and why I find the assumptions I am finding about it in the community counter-intuitive, is physical protectiveness. There appears to be a heavy assumption that the desire to provide physical protection is a dominant trait, and a desire to be the one protected is submissive. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am in no way saying most dominant persons are not protective of their submissives, nor am I implying that there is anything less than wonderful about a dominant feeling physically protective towards their submissive. What I am questioning is: why it is assumed to be an aspect of dominance?

I can think of no society where the guard at the gate is viewed as dominant over the royalty they protect. I can think of no time where I have heard of someone feeling that a celebrity or dignitary is submitting to their bodyguards by allowing them to protect them. To my mind, actively placing the physical safety of another above the safety of oneself is overwhelmingly an act of subservience. Yes, a king, queen, or other head of state is often viewed as the protector of those they lead, but they provide this protection by way of commanding the soldiers and others below them that the leader commands to place themselves bodily in danger to protect the whole.

As a switch, I crave both the power of dominance, and the serine clarity of submission. I do admit I feel protective of any submitting to me. However, I feel much more protective of any who I submit to. I personally feel protective of those I care about no matter what role I take on, but I perceive the drive as feeling much more purely realized within the context of protecting one to whom I have submitted myself. I do not know if this is true of others, but I know that it is true for me.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is one of several examples I have observed where, because it is generally assumed that dominance is masculine and submission is feminine, that any trait that is generally assumed to be masculine must be dominant and that any trait that is assumed to be feminine must be submissive. In a homestead environment, it has generally been assumed that the male is the dominant head of household, and is also responsible for the physical protection of all within the household. With some exceptions, such as defense of children, physical protectiveness is generally viewed as very much so a masculine trait. In fact, to many people, the ability to physically protect those they care for is the primary trait by which the value of a man’s masculinity can be measured. Is this accurate? Not any more so than most other gender role generalities; many women have just as much of a drive to physically protect as any man. However, even when the drive is present in a woman, it is often viewed as masculine.

The large number of traits that are assumed to be dominant or submissive, primarily because they are assumed to be masculine or feminine traits, are problematic when the patriarchal assumption that the dominant must be masculine and the submissive must be feminine is called into question. Personally, as a male, while I feel rather masculine when in a dominant role to a feminine female partner, I feel much more at peace with my masculinity when submitting in a masculine manner to a feminine female partner. I realize that this experience is not universal, that there are men who wish to be feminized in their submission that they wish to offer to a dominant masculine female partner. I realize that there are many places in between on all axis involved with this. I just wish to question the assumption that these traits, in this essay specifically physical protectiveness, are inherent to one end or another of the dominant/submissive dichotomy.

I strongly believe in the viability of masculine male submission through protectivity towards the dominant partner. I strongly believe in the viability of a feminine female dominant accepting the protection of their submissive’s protection as an act of accepting the submissive’s submission. I do not feel that this lessens or calls the viability into question of any other dynamic. I believe that, if one accepts that female/male dominance/submission is viable as the male/female dynamic, it naturally follows that assumptions of what dominance and submission are that were formed under the assumption of masculine dominance over the feminine must also be called into question.

I feel the need to repeat, that I do not believe that there is anything problematic with a dominant of any gender feeling protective of those who submit to them. I also do not believe there is any problem with a submissive basking in the protection of their dominant. The only problem I see is the assumption that this must always be the case.

Arm the Hippies

I honestly believe that one of the biggest problems with the two party polarization of United States politics is the political polarization of weapon training and ownership. This does not come from a strong belief in the sanctity of the second amendment or that guns are evil or good in of themselves; instead I believe that, in a democratic society, linking ownership and knowledge of how to use weapons to one end of a political dichotomy is in of itself dangerous.

In a democratic society, the vote works because it is a simulation of who would win if we had a civil war over the given issue at that time. The political campaign and voting process measures manpower, funding streams, ability to organize, zeal, rhetoric, apathy, and many other determining factors that are also applicable in a civil war scenario. As long as this simulation model is accurate, the democratic process stops us having to physically fight to impose our will on the rest of the population. We measure with a vote who would win and the issue is decided with little to no actual bloodshed.

This all breaks down when the training to use, and ownership of, weapons is entirely on one side of the political spectrum. This makes the entire simulation invalid. It makes it so that if there ever was an issue that the armed party was ruled against in the voting process, and they felt strongly enough about it, it would no longer be in their interests to abide by the democratic results.

I don’t know what issue would be polarizing enough to lead to such an outbreak of violence, but if the polarization of weapon ownership and training continues as it seems to be going, it would most likely be a rather swift and one sided revolution. This is especially true with the fact that a large portion of the military and law enforcement personnel in the U.S. also feel pushed towards the gun-toting end of our political dichotomy. In a civil war scenario, which side is the side of serving your country and neighbors can become rather muddled.

I don’t know what issue would be so divisive that one side would be willing to use force on the other, but the historical evidence is overwhelming that one will come up eventually. Eventually, if we continue this way, there will be some issue that the party with guns feels strong enough about that a large portion of them will feel that it is worth a cost in human lives to see it done their way. When this happens, if the vote does not go their way and it is obvious that use of force will go their way, blood will spill. It will be a disaster. It also will have been entirely preventable.

Just as there are American conservatives that abhor weapons, it is important that we recognize that having armed liberals is important to keeping everyone safe and our system on course. Really, I feel much more comfortable with people who hate weapons and abhor violence owning and knowing how to use them than people who have a fascination and love of weaponry. I don’t see passing laws requiring all citizens having weapons training going through, or going over well even if passed; but I would argue for a need to encourage people, especially those who would never want to use a gun, to know how if it is ever needed.

Disarming the population would not be actionable or practical even if it were preferable. If one side of our political system is heavily armed, it is unsafe in the long term for the other side to remain unarmed. It creates the situation where violence does become an easy answer. Violence is much harder to leap to when your opponent may be able to defend themselves than when you have every reason to believe they are helpless.

In all fairness, it is true that having both sides armed will not stop a civil war. My argument just is that having only one side being armed makes it too tempting for the other side. It makes it tempting enough that over a long enough time scale it seems to me to be inevitable.

Arm the hippies to make it possible that they won’t have to fight.

On Consent

I would like to apologize up front to anyone who is looking for a short and humorous article on this subject. This post will be neither. Consent, or the lack thereof, is a subject for which I lack humor. Also, the treatment I wish to provide the subject in this post can not be done briefly, and thus this post will be rather long and wordy. As relationships in our world are often more complex than is often discussed in polite society, this post will also cover some forms of relationships not often discussed in polite society. Really, standard relationships have adequate guidance out there, and those trudging through the wilderness of non-normative relationships need more guidance, not less.  This will be long in hopes of covering enough ground to be worth the time and effort to write or read. Please, bear with me though, if you will.

One of the most vital and misunderstood aspects of modern sexuality and relationships is the apparently complicated nature of consent. Even in traditional relationships with 'normal' boundaries and expectations there can be huge mistakes made do to misunderstandings on what consent is and is not. Even the simple idea that "No means no," has been difficult to get across clearly to many people, resulting in the fact that supposedly smart men on college campuses parade around chanting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" in mockery of the whole concept of consent.  One work that covers the intricacies of consent in non-traditional relationship models far better than I could cover in one blog post is the book The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy. That book primarily is on the subject of polyamory and the ethics thereof, however, many of the concepts discussed are applicable to any relationship that goes outside of the expected norms of society.

First, I need to establish that legal consent and ethical consent are not the same thing. I am not a lawyer, and am not qualified to give legal consultation. I will be discussing the ethical principal of consent which, while it shares some traits with legal consent, it is quite different in the way that law and ethics are not the same. Just because something is legal does not make it right, nor does something being right make it legal.

Now, it is important to note that consent within relationships does not only refer to sex. Consent in relationships applies to everything. That does not only apply to sexualized and/or romantic relationships. Consent is important in friendships and other social dynamics as well. If a friend tells you a secret, and you tell another person that secret without that friend's consent, then your friend would likely feel betrayed that you violated that trust. Two big concepts important to understand consent in terms of are trust and the violation of trust. When you are in a relationship, even if it is a brief and passing interaction, to go outside of ethical consent is a betrayal and violation of trust, even if the trust was just in one being a worthwhile human being.

The first and most vital principle of consent is, no means no. In sex and romance, if someone says no, then stop. No does not mean "push harder," "I want you to force me," or anything other than "No." This is not just sex. It applies to even there being a romantic relationship in the first place. If you try to initiate a relationship, and the other person does not consent,  you do not get to declare it a romantic relationship anyways.  As the inverse of this principle, do not say "No," when that is not what you mean. If you mean "I'm not sure," then say that. If you mean you want to play out a scene where you can role-play a non-consenting character, then establish that is what is happening. Consenting-non-consent, struggle play, and role-play will be covered in a short bit further, but it should never be assumed that that is what is meant when you say "no" unless it has been explicitly established beforehand that this is what is occurring. Do not keep pushing if the response has been "no". Do not say "no" if you wish to be pushed further. Every anecdote of someone not giving consent and then it turning out that denial of consent is not what they meant undermines the entire premise of consent. It provides people who want a "no" to mean "yes" to claim they misunderstood what was meant with what they feel is a shadow of an excuse. "No means no." goes both directions. If no is said, stop, or at most ask for clarification (which in most situations, they are not required to clarify). If you mean not right now, that you want more romancing, or you are just unconvinced, then say those things.

As a half note, consent is not necessarily only a two way street. Consent involves everyone who is involved. If person A is in a current relationship with person B and wishes to have romantic contact with person C and does not inform both persons B and C of their connection through person A, then informed consent does not exist. Even if the current relationship with person B is non-exclusive, being involved with a third, forth, or hundredth party requires consent from all parties involved insofar as it affects them or the nature of the relationship. Consent from the ethical perspective includes everyone involved, even if they are not physically present.

Now we need discuss the two concepts of explicit consent as opposed to assumed consent. Explicit consent is where the person does not just not say no, they actively agree or request the actions to be taken. Explicit consent also requires that the consenting party is informed of all significant details of what they are consenting to and any probable complications in addition to being in a state of mind where they are capable of making that decision.  If you are married or in another defined romantic relationship and do not inform the person you are sleeping with, then they are not informed in their consent, also, if the other person or persons in your defined relationship are not aware of and have not agreed to your escapades outside of that relationship then they are not informed in their consent to continue that relationship.  This is a large area where ethical and legal consent differ greatly. Another strong example of consent being ethically invalid due to lack of information is if one party has a known communicable disease and neglects to share that information prior to sexual actions that could expose the other person to said disease.  It is important to note that these examples do not cover every situation by a long shot.

Assumed consent, on the other hand, is where explicit consent does not or can not occur but there is every reason to believe in good faith that consent is present. One common way in which assumed consent is often acted upon ethically is when two persons have a pre-existing, active, sexual relationship and one or both are drunk or buzzed beyond the point of clear thinking and thus not able to make the decisions necessary for providing consent. Most sexually active couples would agree that in this situation, for them, consent could be safely assumed by their partner if no other mitigating factors were present. However, prior discussion of any such potential situations would be best for all involved to avoid problems down the road.  It is not better to beg forgiveness than permission.

 

Another example of assumed consent would be in a non-monogamous relationship where Person A is sexually active with four other persons who are all aware of Person A's relationship with all other persons involved, and that it is established that Person A's sexual activity with all persons involved is ongoing. Person A would not be obligated in this situation to check in with all of their other partners each and every time they have intercourse with any one of their partners, only the partner or partners that will be directly involved with that session of sexual activity. This does not mean that Person A should not check in with all of their partners, and routinely re-assess boundaries as well as comfort levels.

The next item to be covered is struggle play and roleplay: the lands where safe-words reign supreme.  Struggle play is where two or more persons wish to participate in sexualized activity where one or more persons involved will be pretending to be a non-consenting participant as part of a sexual-role-play scene, however, all persons involved are explicitly consenting. That all persons be explicit in their consent is paramount, as is establishing a way to revoke consent during the scene, if necessary, that will be easily recognizable as not just playacting. The best established way to do this is to have a hard safe-word, which is a pre-agreed upon word that would be very out of place in the scene, that if said brings the entire scene to a full stop. Some also use a second "soft" safe-word that just indicates that a scene is starting to go too far in one direction or another or the need for a break. Some couples/groups will spend long periods going over itemized lists and discussions of limits, likes, and dislikes beforehand, for some it just consists of "The safe-word is 'neo-classical', now where's the rope?". While safe-words are best known for their use in role-play, bondage, or sadomasochism, they really can be useful to establish even for the most normative couples in case of someone getting "lost in the moment," or if there ever could be any confusion whether someone is playing a part or actually asking for things to stop.

Another sub-point of consent is the revocation thereof. In regards to sex and relationships, any involved party has the full right to revoke consent to their involvement at any time. No prior agreements, contracts, or expectations preclude that right. At any point, even mid action, any involved party must be able to signal their desire to remove themselves from aspects, or the entirety, of the situation. This signal must be followed by everyone involved. If, due to mechanical or other restrictions, a verbal cue such as a safe-word can not be used, then something else should be devised (for example, a person wearing a gag or other mouth covering may hold a bell in their hand, that if they drop it, is considered the same as saying the safe word). That is not to say hard feelings or complications can not arise depending on the nature of the relationship or situation stepped out of. Divorce (revocation of consent to the marriage agreement) from a traditional marriage is a very complicated way for a relationship to end. Also, a submissive who pulls the safe-word out as a "gotcha" card in every dominant/submissive scene they play in may soon find no one wants to play with them. Also, as marriage is no longer an institution of sexual slavery, within a marriage, it is fully within the rights of one participant to decide to not consent to any form of sexual contact with their spouse, ever. It then is within the rights of their spouse to decide whether they consent to staying in a marriage where sex is no longer an aspect of the relationship.

Then there is consenting non-consent. This is an agreement that in a certain scene or situation consent cannot be revoked. I personally object to the idea of this, but others feel it is a necessary thing. In a consenting non-consent situation, consent is given unconditionally for a given scene or entire relationship dynamic. Usually this involves punishment scenes, but may be used in any situation where the submitting party feels they should not have the option of removing consent in the middle of the 'action. Personally I feel this is dangerous and creates much potential for abusers to hide abuse behind a smokescreen of kink. I especially have doubts about people who insist upon all actions in a relationship being consenting non-consent, and who believe that their partners should never be allowed to use a safe word. I acknowledge that there may be those who truly are worthy of that monumental level of trust. It has so much potential for abusers, though, that I personally am wary of it as a concept. If it's what floats your boat, you are an adult, and you genuinely want it, go for it, more power to you. Just be sure to ask yourself why your partner would want you unable to withdraw consent if you feel pressured into a consenting non-consent dynamic.

Every relationship has rules. Many relationships we participate in on a daily basis have per-established social norms that dictate what the rules are if not explicitly spelled out to be otherwise. Most people understand that there are different social expectations with one's drinking buddies, in a church, in an office, in a courtroom, at a sporting event, or at a dance club. There are social norms that in a society define the assumed rules for a friendship, a dating couple, a married couple, a family, and many other relationships. If a relationship isn't going to stray much from those expectations, then there is not a huge number of expectations that will need to be spelled out explicitly, at least at the beginning. Most people can safely assume that, in a committed relationship, sex with others is not allowed and that, in a friendship, tying one another down and stabbing the restrained party with needles will not be seen in a positive light. If a relationship is outside of the assumed social expectations of a relationship of it's type, or the relationship does not fit neatly in any well known relationship category in one's society, then the rules of the relationship should be established explicitly and in detail, or there will undoubtedly be pain and confusion as each person involved has to figure out the expectations of the other/s by trial and error and hope their expectations end up being compatible.

It is important to point out that taking an existing relationship model and subtracting base assumption rules usually makes the relationship much more complicated and delicate, not less. The most obvious example would be removing the limitation of monogamy on a committed romantic relationship. Removing this rule makes many more actions within the rules of the relationship, and thus the expectations of all of the myriad situations that could result in must be established sooner or later or there will likely be a great deal of upset about assumed consent applied poorly.

Rules of different relationship forms is not just a matter for one other post, but of many. The way it applies to this subject, however, is that a relationship's rules define what consent can be safely and ethically assumed. Most of the rules of most long term romantic relationships default to the perceived societal norms for that type of relationship. It is important to know these expectations and how you and anyone you may be involved with differs in expectations from those norms. To go outside of the consented upon rules of a relationship is to violate the trust of the relationship. It is a betrayal. Even if a betrayal happens due to lack of communication, trust is difficult if not impossible to rebuild.

The overarching theme of consent is communication.
Say what you mean.
Mean what you say.
Listen to what is said.
Believe that people mean what they say.
Tell people what you expect of them.
Listen to what those around you expect of you.
Understand the trust placed in you.
Be worthy of even more trust than is placed in you.
Trust those around you enough to be honest with them.
Trust is precious.
Don't wonder what you can get away with.
Do right by everyone.
Be the world growing into a better place.