The proposal of Consent as an ongoing enthusiastic yes is not as clear as some promote it to be.

In a
recent panel on Bdsm one of the panelist1 said in their discussion of consent that there is no 50 shades
of grey area in consent, either you have permission or you don't, if you do then go for it buddy, if you
don't then stop, end of discussion. While there certainly is merit in this conception of consent, as we
will discuss later, it fails to acknowledge the practice of consent and further fails to provide a certain
robustness that one needs to cope with situations which will confront many practicioners in the bdsm
sphere.
To understand this we can interrogate what it means to consent, and further, what it means to have
consent which is 1.) ongoing 2.) enthusiastic and 3.) affirmative.
Consent on a basic conception can be described as a giving of permission for something to happen or
an agreement to do something more generally. So when I consent to having sex I am at the very
minimum saying that I will allow sex to occur ( presumably with me) . However what is the
mechanism by which I consent. On a naive interpretation of the Ongoing enthusiastic yes paradigm
we would say that in order to consent to an action we would need to provide the literal locution yes.
However this doesn't work, few couples actually ask the literal question do you want to X before
every consent begging action.
Consent begging actions are those actions which demand consent in a stronger sense than others. For
example,sex with another would be a consent begging action, while sending your child to school would
not be. This discussion presupposes an anglo-american perspective.
Further such a restriction would exclude all instances of Bdsm play involving gags, as saying a clear
and distinct yes with a gag between your teeth is difficult to say the least.
I suppose it might have been important to trace the dual nature of consent through its development of
No means no to yes means yes . This is the case because it reveals something interesting about the
sort of work that we want to see a word do , this is my basis for defining consent and is nessecary on a
per formative conception of language...., we want the term consent ro in the first case prevent the
victimization and true objectification of the other, more on the difference between true and ethical
objectification later, and in the second case we are looking for an empowerment of the other.
Closing a business deal over dinner versus asking for submission during oral
Rationality and consent.
Rationale for locution as a primary mode of consent.
Rationality is preferred as vehicle to get to consent emotion Is preffered for the enactment of consent,
except when it isnt.
Rationality as not seperate from emotion
If we want to talk to what we want consent to do yet still want to do a phenomenological analysis of the
term while supposing that
1 Admittedly the panelist were not proclaimed experts in the field, but rather were persons with lived narratives pertaining
to BDSM more generally.

Care ethics as a mode of ethically coping with the other in a relational ethical schema. What does it
mean to care, care as an openess to possibility and transformation and possible moving on of the other,,
to take up the other as not necessarily 'me' directed