Consent is dynamic
BDSM consent is
explicit, enthusiastic, informed, and ongoing agreement, distinguishing consensual play from abuse, relying heavily on clear communication, negotiation, and safe words (like 'Red' or 'Yellow') to define limits and boundaries, ensuring activities stop immediately if consent is withdrawn, even during a scene, often formalized with contracts, and is seen as a model for broader consent culture.
Key Principles
Explicit & Informed: Consent must be clearly stated and understood, not assumed.
Enthusiastic: It should be freely given, not coerced.
Ongoing: Consent can be revoked at any time; the activity must stop immediately if a safeword is used.
Negotiated: Detailed discussions happen before, during, and after activities (aftercare) to establish what's allowed (limits/hard limits) and what's off-limits (soft limits, no-gos).
Tools for Consent
Safewords: Verbal cues (e.g., "Red" means stop) to halt play instantly.
Negotiation: Pre-scene discussions about activities, intensity, and expectations.
Contracts: Written agreements detailing limits, roles, and rules.
Aftercare: Post-scene emotional and physical support, crucial for checking in and processing the experience.
Models for Consent
SSC (Safe, Sane, Consensual): A traditional framework focusing on safety, mental soundness, and consent.
RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink): Emphasizes individual responsibility and acknowledging that no activity is 100% safe, focusing on informed risk-taking.
PRICK (Personal Responsibility, Informed, Consensual Kink): A newer model highlighting personal accountability.
Why it Matters
Distinguishes from Abuse: Explicit consent is the defining line between consensual BDSM and non-consensual abuse or assault.
Builds Trust: Open communication fosters deeper connection and self-awareness.
Foundation for Practice: It's the bedrock that allows for complex power exchange within a safe, ethical framework
Consent and the Law UK
Is it legal ?
R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19, [1994] 1 AC 212[a] is a House of Lords judgment that confirmed the conviction of five men for consensual sadomasochistic acts over a ten-year period. The men were convicted of unlawful and malicious wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm under sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The central question was whether consent could be a valid defence to assault in these circumstances. The Court held it could not by a majority of 3 to 2.
