
Originally Posted by
delia
Nope. I didn't say it was a negative term in the sense you are saying. You are implying I have a negative view of the term or believe it to be "wrong." THAT would be incorrect. So hopefully you didn't read into that incorrectly.
I meant linguistically, the term implies the negative: consentual non-consent IMPLIES consenting to not consenting to doing something--it's "negative"-- sort of saying "I agree not to agree not to do something"-- it's a negative negative.
That being said.
It IS formalistically unrealistic. Substantively, I understand what you are saying--you would consider yourself a no-limits slave. But formalistically, by implying that you consented to never choosing, that's a choice in & of itself, AND is also not feasible unless you don't have a brain. Neurologically, humans make decisions consistently--if only between A & B, they are still making decisions. You choose to allow your Dominant to treat you as he does--that's a choice EVERYtime he does something... Whether or not you want/are willing to admit it--that is another decision you have.
On the other hand, from the realist/substantive perspective, I understand you would consider yourself to not make your own decisions, but to have your Dominant make them for you. That is what you mean by "consenting non-consensual."
But... let's call apples apples... you made the decision, the choice if you will, every time your Dominant makes a decision to follow it... you could choose not to follow it--it's your choice, it's your submission, that drives you to do what he wishes. If you don't, there are consequences--everything up to & including perhaps ending the dynamic the way it's set up... but again, it's a choice.
THAT was my point. ~grins~