Emerie |
4 months ago •
Jun 27, 2024
4 months ago •
Jun 27, 2024
Emerie • Jun 27, 2024
I say yes, consent is enough.
My take is consent is a starting line. The green to start driving down the road at the speed limit agreed upon. Negotiations are guideline/base on the possible path to reach the destination. Now depending on the passengers and obstacles that may come up, paths/speeds can change. On the journey isn't there constant checking (reading body language, sounds, expressions) from both sides (D type looking to s type and s type looking within) and an agreement to voice concerns if any come up(safe words)? Isn't that a continued form of checking if the other is consenting to the change/addition? I think viewing the initial consent as a blanket statement to all possibilities in itself is where the concerns start to arise. If there are/were specifics then those should have been included in the negotiations, which then actually for me would be informed consent. That would be more of a firmly set route rather than an open path. Given consent doesn't go far enough when the consent is assumed for consent to anything/everything that could be included. But then wouldn't that be a concerning factor of the D type assuming rather than the s type's consent? Kind of like saying "Yes, I'll drink soda" taken as "Yes, I'll drink ALL soda even if they have poison in them". |
|