Untitled

>>16887021

For clarity's sake, are you

>>16886840

and did you mean to respond to me here

>>16886925

?

 

tl;dr: Consent is the act of giving permission. If permission is given to do thing by a person in their right mind then consent is given to do thing, even if it removes their ability to ever revoke that consent.

 

IN MY OPINION it is okay (emphasis since I don't really know how it's handled legally, and that's probably a big element of this discussion), but not because the time element.

Consent is permission given to do something, and in order to revoke that permission that removal has to be communicated. Since the person in bondage did not communicate the removal of the consent until the preplanned 15 minute mark, the person in control has done nothing wrong by not ending the scenario until then.

It sucks that the person has had to spend 10 minutes in a situation that they don't want to be in, but that was one of the possibilities that they would have been aware of (or should have been) when they agreed to the scenario.

 

To be honest, I was being a bit dumb and not really considering the idea of being mind-controlled for extremely long periods, which is sort of what you're driving at there because while MC is my fetish, all my fantasies revolve around either temporary scenarios for play kinda similar to the bondage stuff, or mental alterations which kind of fall under a different thing, since they're once-done thing rather than a continuous act like bondage, where once it's done it's out of the alterer's hands and removal would require a new act and agreement.

 

Mind control for all eternity I would say still allows for consent, since consent is the act of giving permission, but the fact that it removes your ability to ever revoke that consent is dangerous as hell and skeeves me out too.