Collarspace.com
Home
Home
Browse Profiles
Browse
Collarspace Video
Live
Dating
Dating
Collarspace News
News
Alt
Alt
Advertising
Advertising
Safety
Safety
Extreme Restraints
Toys
Discussion Forums
Forums
Friends
Friends
Resources
Resources
Welcome to Collarspace
Welcome
Join Collarspace
Join
Login
Login
Vertical Line

LordUnicron
Back
Back
Interests
  Interests
Join

LordUnicron
I am a 15-year veteran of alternative lifestyles and have been very active in the PDX community since my arrival in October. I artifice and use my own toys and have a sub who supports my efforts to find other women, preferably but not necessarily bisexual, who may be interested in everything from casual play to possibly becoming full members of House Unicron. Please understand that if you are seeking monogamy, you are looking in the wrong place. Nothing personal, I just don't roll that way anymore, because I've had too many women expect me to make them a priority and then treat me as an option. Not going to play those games in the future, so if monogamy is really that near and dear to your heart, you should probably stop reading now. My Hard Limits: Toilet play/watersports Blood Needles/blades (excepting carefully performed knife play) Minors Corpses Animals Anything that might do lasting/permanent physical injury I am open to exploring or actively doing just about anythingnot listed above, within RACK/SSC limits. Message me and let's find out if we click! Please note that I am looking for people to meet in real life, am NOT interested in endless emails or flakes, and have NO patience whatsoever for fakes, flakes, frauds or people or who say/promise one thing and do another. I am genuine, real and first and foremost, I am a human being. I will treat you as I expect to be treated, within the confines of a D/s dynamic. Simple, right? If you would like more information about Sparrow (my sub), just ask. However, understand that she is MY sub and will remain that way so long as we both consent. I do not loan out my toys to anyone of the male persuasion, and will only consider her participating in a scene on a sexual level if ALL parties agree that this is desirable. She is MY slut, but not A slut in the more common parlance, so I respect her right to exercise a degree of autonomy concerning her body.
Hmmm...

So it's Valentine's Day and either every woman within 50 miles who meets criteria has someone or isn't on/talking. Isn't there one real woman out there who wants to talk and maybe get a V-Day beating?
Consent Violation: It's Not Just For Tops Anymore!

A more refined further response to [https://fetlife.com/users/52827/posts/3485885

]

Let me clarify five major points off the bat, so there's no confusion:

1. "Tops" as used here means anyone on the left side of the slash, and "bottoms" means anyone on the right. Feel free to adjust these to your personal usage or most accurate terminology in your mind as you read this.

2. Yes, sadly, consent violation is a thing that (seems to) happen far more often to bottoms than tops. More on this below.

3. Consent violation doesn't have to be (visibly) major to be a serious problem.

4. ANYONE, ANYWHERE can be a victim of a false accusation. I am not at all challenging Wainskote's overall assertion, only the lens through which it was presented.

5. I am assuming here that "consent violation" refers to a hard limit that was explicitly stated in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted. Communication and using your words are a thing, and I've read about some bottoms who conceded that their communication pre-scene was lacking, which led to a violation in-scene. Does this make the violation any less? No. Does it mitigate the problem? Again, no. The Top AND bottom have an equal obligation to ensure the limits and parameters of the scene, interaction or relationship are clearly set, defined and understood on both sides, no matter how long it takes. Tops are human, folks, and if the bottom isn't clear about their limits OR the Top doesn't take time to clarify any seeming vagaries before the scene, then both are equally to blame for the outcome, in my opinion.

We good?

Right, then. On with the show!

We hear a lot about consent violation from the Top side, which is as it should be. Consent violation is a definite problem, especially when the violator ought to know better or is working outside the clearly defined boundaries. I believe that consent violators, on BOTH sides of the slash, have an obligation to at a minimum apologize and try to make the situation better if they can, which if you've been following my writing you may have noticed is a recurring theme. The problem is that this paragraph reinforces the problematic and one-sided view that ONLY a Top can possibly be guilty of a consent violation, and I promise you from personal experience that this is simply not true.

You see, bottoms don't (usually) have the opportunity for big, dramatic, often public consent violations the way Tops do. When they do, they're almost certain to have half the crowd staring in utter puzzlement trying to figure out what the actual fuck just happened here. A Top who gets out of line that way or goes beyond consented boundaries in many cases, but by no means always, does so very visibly, and of course when it happens in public especially, word gets around.

But when was the last time you heard about a bottom violating consent?

I'm sure someone, somewhere has at some time, but it almost always seems to be the kind of thing that you've never seen, but your best friend's great uncle's college roommate's kinky second cousin had happen to him. (Or her, don't let's be sexist here.) I myself might remember seeing maybe ONE story about bottom-driven consent violation, but that was months ago and the details are extremely hazy, so I could very well be wrong here.

The reason for this is because there is a certain expectation in the community that Tops are, by virtue of their position, automatically responsible for anything that happens to the bottom in scene, good or bad, right or wrong. This is not entirely unfair, but it does take a great deal of the onus and personal responsibility for the bottom's own safety off the bottom. This is both freeing in the context of a scene and very dangerous in the wider world of kink, because it feeds this myth that ONLY a Top can be guilty of a consent violation.

I know from personal experience that this is not, in fact, the case.

Here's the issue: When we assume that ONLY a Top can possibly be guilty of a consent violation and that ONLY a Top has any responsibility for their actions, we overlook the fact that bottoms can and do violate consent. It's much more quiet and subtle as a general rule. It's the bottom who is asked not to talk about a certain subject but can't resist bringing it up despite being told it's a hard limit, or the one who doesn't divulge a complete medical and pharmacological history to the Top before play, or who is asked not to approach the Top at an event and does so anyway. These types of violations are nowhere near as flashy as using a barbed-wire flogger on someone who's clearly indicated "Thatz NOT okay!" or as dramatic as sticking one's dick in an unwilling partner, but they can be just as damaging and harmful to the Top and the community in the long run.

The interesting dichotomy here is that the unfortunate bottom who didn't consent to penetrative sex can stand up and expect at least some support from the people around them. (I am aware this doesn't happen in all cases and that predators who are perceived to have power and clout in their communities often have their own supporters who will immediately act to silence any discussion, criticism or questions about the funny business they've gotten up to. I WILL NOT AND DO NOT take anything away from bottoms who have been victimized this way, so please do not mistake my intent here.)

But when was the last time you heard about a Top's consent being violated, aside from right here in this very writing? Did you even think it was possible for a bottom to violate consent? And if you did hear such a tale from a Top, what would you think about it? Smart money says you'd probably be at least a little skeptical or ask some questions to see if a consent violation actually occurred. Would you do that with a bottom who leveled a similar accusation? If not, WHY not?

Why the dichotomy?

I can think of three reasons this might be.

1. Tops are supposed to be "in command," "in control," and be above anything the bottom may try to pull. This is the flip side of the mythical narrative that only the Top can ever be guilty of a consent violation. It is an insidiously toxic point of view because it encourages one to view the Top as a semi-divine figure instead of a flawed human being who can and sometimes does make mistakes.

2. If a Top accuses a bottom of a consent violation, the bottom can retaliate. Ask yourself honestly: In a situation where consent violation is the focus, who are you more likely to believe? Even if the Top speaks first, the bottom requires no evidence, let alone proof. The rumor mill stemming from the false accusation will most likely smear the Top's reputation, while the Top's perfectly valid and justified accusation goes largely unheard, putting us back to #1. So what does the Top do? If he/she/hir is smart, they keep their head down and their mouth shut. (I'm a very intelligent mammal on a good day. Whether I'm a smart one as used in the previous sentence may be open to debate once in a while.)

3. Even if the Top is believed about the consent violation and the severity of the matter, the Top is probably not going to be encouraged to name names or talk about it beyond the fact it happened. Once again, we're back to #1, with the looming threat of #2 added in for good measure.

So we see, consent violation isn't as black and white as it is sometimes painted. It can and does happen on both sides of the slash, and can be just as harmful or hurtful to Tops as it is bottoms when it does occur. I freely admit that this writing has led to a change in my own thinking, because even though I've seen consent violated by bottoms, I'm far more likely to question the Top's version of events than the bottom's. This is a dangerous and problematic mode of thinking that I am striving, in my own personal interactions, to overcome. I hope that the next time I am told of a consent violation by a Top OR a bottom, I will give them equal consideration before forming my opinion of what I THINK actually went down.

Am I saying any of this is right? HELL FUCKING NO, I'M NOT! We as a community have an obligation to take ALL consent violations seriously because of the physical, mental and emotional harm they can do. The problem, I reiterate, is that consent violations aren't just for Tops anymore, and the sooner we as a community recognize that, the sooner we can start putting everyone on a more equal footing with regards to personal responsibility for their own and their partner's safety.

And I personally believe that can ONLY benefit all of us, as kinksters and as ambassadors to the vanilla world about what kink REALLY is all about.

For more on this, from my perspective:

[https://fetlife.com/users/5437732/posts/3450211

]
[https://fetlife.com/users/5437732/posts/3442205

]
Blah.

Rainy, dreary day. Counting my blessings that at least it's warmer out. Toying with the notion of having a beer. Anyone care to join me?
7 Quick Steps To Getting Blocked For s-Types!

I read the email.

Blinked.

Read it again.

Shook my head, muttered something vaguely obscene even by my admittedly liberal standards and lit a cigarette.

Sparrow glanced and said, "What is it, Sire?"

I read the email aloud to her. When I was done, she was laughing so hard she could barely hold on to the steering wheel, a state of affairs I freely admit to finding more than a trifle alarming.

"She really thought that was going to fly?"

I know it's fashionable in the kink community to assume that only D-types are capable of behaving badly and s-types are nothing more than the poor helpless recipients. But in a single email, this s-type managed to do absolutely everything I warned her previously not to do, and wound up blocked for her trouble.

Look, I get it. Your little s-type heart is all a-twitter at the thought of finally finding someone who you can kneel before, who knows how to use a cane, a cock and a kiss with equal aplomb and who can say everything you don't dare think in your darkest and most depraved fantasies. That's all well and good. Everyone here is looking for someone(s) whose demons play well with their own. That's a given. Now that we've established that, let me tell you seven quick ways you will NOT find it with me.

1. I'm a Master. I'm not YOUR Master.

Until negotiations are complete, I'm not anything to you but a potential dominant. We haven't discussed limits, boundaries, safewords or any of that other fussy and sometimes uncomfortable stuff that comes with playing on the level I do. If you must assign me an honorific, knowing that I am not yet YOUR Master, "Sir" is perfectly adequate for showing proper respect. Jumping the gun = presumption, and I do not tolerate that in an s-type who would kneel before me.

2. You're a sub/slave/masochist. You're not MY sub/slave/masochist.

Again, until we've negotiated and I've had a chance to hear your voice, discuss your deepest fears and most keenly felt desires and you truly feel I know you better than you know yourself, you are not mine. Signing yourself as "Your slave," "Your property" or anything of the kind is presumptuous and assumes that I couldn't possibly NOT want you.

3. You have limits.

Let's not fuck around here. If I tell you to amputate all your limbs and throw yourself into a volcano, you're probably going to tell me to get fucked, right? (And you'd be entirely within your rights to do so.) Saying you have no limits and that you're down for absolutely whatever might pass through my blackened, evil little mind and heart at any given time is bullshit. You may think you're impressing me, but I assure you you're not. I demand a healthy degree of self-preservation in my s-types, no matter how much of a masochist or pain slut you are or how eager to please you might be. "No limits" = "Hi, I'm suicidal!" Not at all attractive, least of all at this stage of the game.

4. Um, no, I doubt very much you can do THAT.

I don't care how flexible you are. The human body has limits. Claiming that you can bend your spine a full 360 degrees is not only anatomically impossible for any normal human being, but honestly gives me an unholy case of the creeps just thinking about it. If you CAN do this, please, feel free to keep it to yourself.

5. No excuses.

I don't know any D-type out there who accepts excuses in lieu of action, and I am one of the harder around at that. Actions speak louder than words. When I say, "Do this," I'm telling you for a reason. If there's an obstacle, I want to see you overcome it. If there's a problem, I want to see what measures you'll go to in the service of solving it. If you can't push yourself enough to work out how to obey a simple command given in email, after talking all that good shit about what a great slave you are, then you sure as hell can't push yourself enough to stack up against what I'm bringing.

6. You're NOT going to take the primary slot.

My primary place is already spoken for, and it's not by you. Anything that says or implies otherwise is demeaning to those who have already earned their places; to yourself, because if I can replace them, make no mistake, I can damn sure replace you too; and to me, because that implies that I was a) willing to settle for second best or b) have a changeable enough heart and mind that NRE will make me forget all about the ones who have served me faithfully and loyally since before I ever knew or cared that you exist.

7. Be with me because you want ME, not because you're so desperate to belong to someone that anyone will do.

This means being financial and otherwise self-sustaining. This means being able and willing to invest some time in proving that you really are the s-type I seek right now. This means understanding that I live in a poly House and I'm the top dog. This means understanding that you really do have the right to ask to be released and/or walk away whenever you please, so long as you do it with due respect for the feelings of all concerned and the time we've spent together.

Or, you know...

I can always block you.

Don't get blocked.
MY DOMINANCE IS NOT YOUR DOMINANCE.

It's almost repugnant that this even has to be said. The whole "M_INY_" format, or its reverse, should have long since put this debate to rest. And yet it rages on across the Internet everywhere kinksters gather, a world-class dick-waving contest about who the "True" Doms are, how to tell them from "Twue" Doms and how to distinguish all of the above from the weekend warriors, poseurs and people who think Fifty Shades of Shit is a freaking manual instead of a cautionary tale.

So, I'm taking a page out of Rhett Butler's book and giving a stern, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

See, here's my take on it.

If you're not Feeding, Financing or Fucking me (Yes, the 3F rule asserts itself again), you don't have a say in whether or not my dominance is or is not this, that or the other thing. If I ask for your opinion, advice or assistance, that's a very different matter, because I don't think I know it all and no one else does other. The last several months have been a brutal hard-knocks lesson in just how quickly and easily things can go from halcyon to Hell, even when you know the person inside, outside and every other side too. So when I need or want advice, I seek it out from people I know and trust.

I know a few "Doms" who think they are the sole repository of things Domly and any wisdom or knowledge they choose to impart should be treated like it was brought down on a stone tablet cradled in Moses' own arms. That's great and all, but there's a couple of problems with that way of thinking.

1) The 3Fs. You ain't.
2) You don't know me, my subs or our dynamics well enough to have any clue what the balances, personalities and internal negotiations look like. You see an outside view that in no way reveals the hours and hours of work and negotiation and discussion and coming to a meeting of the minds. So you don't know what all is involved or how your simple, black and white "A>B>C" solution completely ignores the massive amount of grayscale involved in the situation.
3) Just because it works for you and your subs, or you and your D-type, doesn't automatically make it appropriate for me and mine.
4) When I want your opinion, I'll tell you, giving you sufficient information to make an informed judgment on the matter. If I don't, then you can assume I probably don't need or want your input.

What I do on the average day may not look like dominance to you at all. Just because my sub gets a certain license to lip off in the vanilla world does not mean at all that she will not be checked on it at a more propitious time. Just because I allow my sub to stop a scene when she experiences undue discomfort doesn't mean she doesn't take the scene seriously or that she is trying to top from the bottom, but is trying to ensure her own ongoing safety and ability to continue the scene in accordance with my commands.

My dominance is not your dominance, and if you're not living with it, her or me on a daily basis, how I conduct my dominance is really no concern of yours.

This PSA brought to you by the numbers "13," "5" and the letter "Shutdafucup."

Thank you for reading.