Binding Consent
(sometimes called consensual nonconsent)

by DurLlwyd - version 1.0

You can't spend so much as a single hour around the D/s community without hearing the word "consent." Consent is one of the conceptual cornerstones in the modern world of BDSM and D/s. However, as common as the term may be, there are aspects of the concept that are less commonly discussed. For instance, there is the concept of "binding consent", sometimes called "consensual nonconsent." These phrases seem to be used in hushed terms, almost as though they were the family members that no one is comfortable talking about.

"Binding consent" almost sounds like it involves ropes and chains. It certainly doesn't sound like something that can be talked about in polite company. Of course, like so many things related to D/s and BDSM the reality is really quite mundane.

For the purposes of this article we can divide "consent" into one of two classes: "binding" or "revocable."

"Revocable consent" (sometimes called "at will") is where someone consents to something, but the consent is revocable at any time. A simple example is loaning someone your pen. When you loan someone your pen, you are allowing them to use it, but expected them to return it as soon as you say, "I need my pen back." In essence, you haven't granted them a right to the pen; they are just "borrowing" it until you want it back.

Another example of revocable consent can be found in the typical mainstream dating relationship. In such a relationship, two people have consented to "date." However, either party is free to discontinue the relationship at any time and neither individual is obligated to continue the relationship if they don't wish too. It could be said that either party can revoke consent and end the relationship.

However, there is another type of consent called "binding consent." "Binding consent" refers to consent that either cannot be revoked or to consent that cannot be revoked unless certain conditions are met. Binding consent is the act by which people voluntarily take on an obligation. Or to put it another way, "binding consent" is nothing more than entering into a contract.

A contract can be as simple as signing up for a one year subscription to a magazine. Once you pay for the subscription, the company is obligated to deliver the magazine to you every month. Taking a ride in a taxicab is another example of a simple, but often unspoken contract. The taxi takes you to your destination and when you arrive, the driver expects to be paid. The point being, once you have consented to the trip, you have entered a contract and you are obligated to pay the driver.

Of course there are much more complex contracts that one can enter into. A commonly used example is joining the military. A military contract is a substantial instance of binding consent. Once you join the military you have agreed to go where you are told and you have agreed to do what you are told. You can't simply change your mind and revoke consent. Once you have consented to an enlistment contract, you are then obligated by that contract. It is this creation of an obligation that defines a binding contract.

Binding consent may include escape clauses or duration limits; for example, a military contract is typically for a specific length of time. At the end of a military enlistment the contract expires and the obligation comes to an end. However, what makes the contract binding is that a person cannot simply change their mind halfway through their term. A contract is basically a set of rules that a person consents to follow.

The difference between revocable consent and binding consent boils down to this: With revocable consent a person has not taken on a continuing obligation, with binding consent they have.

D/s relationships can and do operate on both forms of consent. And, I certainly would not suggest that either style of relationship is better than the other. However, it has been my personal experience that D/s relationships involving binding consent are more likely to be criticized.

The problem appears to have several different causes. The first of which is that D/s relationships are often viewed as being less "serious" than more mainstream relationships. Many people see D/s as recreational play only. While I do not believe there is anything wrong with D/s as a recreational activity, actual D/s relationships have nothing to do with role-play. If a person is not aware that D/s is a complete relationship dynamic with its own unique qualities, than they are vulnerable to mistaking a serious D/s relationship for a vanilla relationship that includes exaggerated role-play. In such cases, outsiders will tend to discount obligations associated with D/s because they incorrectly perceive the obligation as based in role-play rather than as the core structure of the relationship.

Another issue is that vanilla romantic relationships are generally not viewed by society as involving a contract or obligation, at least not until marriage. As used in the earlier example, vanilla dating relationships are generally viewed to function on a "at will" basis. As such, there is a tendency for people to assume the same is true, or should be true for D/s relationships.

There is also a lack of self-awareness that comes into the equation. People often forget that vanilla relationships have a process for progressing from "revocable" to "binding", it is called marriage. And even in the case of marriage, the importance of obligation within the structure of marriage has changed over time; today, most people do not take "till death do us part" literally. However, marriage still contains a sense of obligation. This is why the courts decide divorce cases. Neither party is allowed to release themselves. It is a binding commitment.

This parallelism is often lost in today's world of temporary marriages and obligations. When you consider that honoring a vow to stay together "for better or for worse" is more likely to be viewed as a crime against the self, rather than being seen as proof of one's honor. It is not hard to understand why an outsider would look unfavorably on D/s commitment. Not only is it a binding obligation, something not generally held in high esteem, but it is also an obligation to a lifestyle that is different from their own.

So the next time you are met with criticism for suggesting that some submissives and slaves actually have an obligation to obey, it may help to remind people that the parties involved willingly entered into a binding D/s contract. It may also be helpful to remind them that both parties, as adults, made a choice to take on the obligations of the relationship.