Unlocked collar? What that means?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

55 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If a collar is set to public access, then I consider it a permission setting that allows you to do exactly that, even if the particular context isn't ideal. It was those sort of grabs that taught and reminded me to check what my collar settings were before I went out shopping for example. Personally I don't like long drawn out conversations asking for permission to leash me as it hints at someone insecure. If you have to ask, the answer will likely be "No" on general principle. A good Dom/me can read the conversation and know or be willing to risk taking it to the next level. Might get a rejection or two and a general freakout but that's ok. The one with the open collar obviously needs to learn how to configure the settings that allows the degree of permissivity they are ok with.

What this tells me, Arielle, is that, whatever else you may be engaged in here, it's not BDSM.

What you "consider" permission doesn't matter: consent is explicit, two-sided, and prior. Assuming that this or that constitutes "permission" is not obtaining consent, and it would, in RL, leave you open to an accusation of sexual assault.

In SL the consequences for both parties are obviously less severe, but at the very least you are opening the door to verbal or emotional abuse by not obtaining prior consent. And you are not engaging in D/s or BDSM.

Might I direct your attention to this useful page, from the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, on the subject of explicit prior permission in D/s and BDSM? You'll find a wealth of information there on the subject.

 

[Odaks]

3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

This can happen even if you are completely innocent.

Strewth! You just can't win, can you!

That was a definite wind-up, though; exactly the sort of thing we don't want.

[Odaks]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What you "consider" permission doesn't matter: consent is explicit, two-sided, and prior.

Thanks, Scylla. That says it all.

[Arielle Popstar]

14 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What this tells me, Arielle, is that, whatever else you may be engaged in here, it's not BDSM.

What you "consider" permission doesn't matter: consent is explicit, two-sided, and prior. Assuming that this or that constitutes "permission" is not obtaining consent, and it would, in RL, leave you open to an accusation of sexual assault.

In SL the consequences for both parties are obviously less severe, but at the very least you are opening the door to verbal or emotional abuse by not obtaining prior consent. And you are not engaging in D/s or BDSM.

Might I direct your attention to this useful page, from the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, on the subject of explicit prior permission in D/s and BDSM? You'll find a wealth of information there on the subject.

 

With all due respect Scylla, your post is a little confusing in the sense that you write it intimating I am the Domme whereas I wrote my post from the perspective of the submissive and sharing my thoughts on Dom/me's accessing a Open/Public access collar in a virtual environment. When I have a collar set in that way, I have already given my consent. In the same way as millions of products on the marketplace have permission boxes set by the creator of them and therefore one does not need to contact that creator to verify the permission/consent for what is allowed or not. Explicit prior permission if you will. Now in my particular case, that public access only allows a member of the public to grab my leash and make me pose in one of the stock Opencollar animations and anything further than that, will require me to allow that according to how I set the collar up and the specific permissions I give to the Domme I am interacting with. As Madeleine pointed out in a previous post, a sub has the control. 

ps-your link is not working.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 2/10/2022 at 12:01 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

That doesn't sound familiar, but this does...

https://meritcoba.com/2014/03/15/art-by-second-life-⊱the-gateway⊰/

ETA: I recall a circle of meditation pillows surrounding an open patio like area, possibly surrounded by a short stone wall. You entered through through a gateway arch.

ETA2: Googling has jogged my memory. The tagline for "The Gateway" was "D/s without the BS". That's the place I visited long long ago.

ETA3: I might have single-handedly violated the tagline with my participation ;-).

I was a member and DJ for that group for a very long time. I was sad to see the BD/Sm side close years ago.  

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

With all due respect Scylla, your post is a little confusing in the sense that you write it intimating I am the Domme whereas I wrote my post from the perspective of the submissive and sharing my thoughts on Dom/me's accessing a Open/Public access collar in a virtual environment. When I have a collar set in that way, I have already given my consent. In the same way as millions of products on the marketplace have permission boxes set by the creator of them and therefore one does not need to contact that creator to verify the permission/consent for what is allowed or not. Explicit prior permission if you will. Now in my particular case, that public access only allows a member of the public to grab my leash and make me pose in one of the stock Opencollar animations and anything further than that, will require me to allow that according to how I set the collar up and the specific permissions I give to the Domme I am interacting with. As Madeleine pointed out in a previous post, a sub has the control. 

ps-your link is not working.

How could you possibly think that having an opened collar would automatically be an invite for any Dom/Domme to snatch you up? Any Dom/DOmme wourth anything would always ask and get consent before initiating any sort of play. Unless you were specifically in a CARP sim for instance. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 2/18/2022 at 8:12 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

If a collar is set to public access, then I consider it a permission setting that allows you to do exactly that, even if the particular context isn't ideal. It was those sort of grabs that taught and reminded me to check what my collar settings were before I went out shopping for example. Personally I don't like long drawn out conversations asking for permission to leash me as it hints at someone insecure. If you have to ask, the answer will likely be "No" on general principle. A good Dom/me can read the conversation and know or be willing to risk taking it to the next level. Might get a rejection or two and a general freakout but that's ok. The one with the open collar obviously needs to learn how to configure the settings that allows the degree of permissivity they are ok with.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. In your early days, you experienced the "sort of grabs" that taught you to check your collar settings before exposing yourself to the public. Those grabs were undesired, so you changed collar settings to prevent them. It would, I think, be reasonable to suspect that people new to BDSM in general and SL BDSM in particular might have similar undesirable experiences. The requests for assistance I've seen in the OpenCollar group chat, from people who'd endured unpleasant grabs because they didn't understand their collars (sometimes gifted without instruction or even pressured upon them by Dom/mes), support that suspicion.

As a submissive, you don't like "long drawn out discussions" asking for your consent, and consider people who initiate them insecure. Why not shorten or eliminate the discourse by describing the nature of your consent in your profile, or visiting only those places with clearly defined rules of engagement (like the CARP places Drake mentioned)?  While you see consideration from a Dom/me as a sign of insecurity, I see explicitly obtaining consent as a prerequisite. I view submissives who expect Dom/mes to mind-read as lazy, inconsiderate, and potentially inviting the sort of reckless behavior that endangers the pleasure of others. The OP thinks treating open access collars as invitations is rude. I agree.

The BDSM community contains people with a very wide range of interests and experience levels. The apparent imbalance of power in BDSM makes it ripe for abuse by people who desire an actual imbalance of power. Though the virtual nature of SL BDSM lowers risk, it does not eliminate it. To maintain a healthy and vibrant environment in which adults can explore, showing and expecting mutual consideration and respect should not be a buzzkill.

Here's the corrected link to NCSF's consent page... https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs-2/consent-counts/

Edited February 20, 2022 by Madelaine McMasters
Added the link.

[rasterscan]

Subs ? Make mine a foot long meatball and cheese melt yummy

[Arielle Popstar]

If someone sets their collar to allow public access, I see it as a Explicit prior permission and one can really not complain if another then does that. It is no different then if one sets the permissions of strippable clothing, spankers, head patters etc to allow anyone to do so. The Authorization and Access page is really quite self explanatory:

 

 

and even with allowing public access, there is a somewhat limited range of controls one has unless RLV is enabled in the viewer and an RLV relay if one is into bondage stuff. Perhaps the issue here is whether one is looking for a long term Master or Domme vs being available for a session lasting a few hours or days. Then yes, I can see it would be best to check out whether a dom/me and sub are looking for the same level of play but those sort aren't usually setting their collars to Public. Maybe the collar developers should be asked what the intent is in coding the Public setting rather then only allowing specific people or groups to access a collar. The way I interpret it and I think any subs I have known over the years, is that when it is set to Public, anyone is allowed to grab it without necessarily asking for specific and express permission.

[Kalegthepsionicist]

On 2/19/2022 at 9:31 AM, Lindal Kidd said:

This can happen even if you are completely innocent. While I was answering noobie questions at Welcome Island, one newcomer IM'd me...

"Do you want to f*** my p****?"
"No thank you. If you want to have cybersex, you should search the Adult areas."

Very quickly thereafter, I got another IM from a complete stranger.

"Don't go trying to have sex with my slave. She doesn't need your help, b****."

I muted both of 'em.

they are very honest, I respect them.

😆

[StarlanderGoods]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If someone sets their collar to allow public access, I see it as a Explicit prior permission

The idea that people have explicit permission to do everything that the system allows to do to another avatar is not a well thought out one.  Just try to extrapolate it to other situations and you will see it falls flat nearly inmediately.  Specially if we consider how immersive SL can be.

Ill give you a silly example, I dont like people standing too close to me in SL, if someone does, I move away, if they kept following me, I could AR them for harassment, despite it being allowed by the system mechanics themselves.

With the public collar, I asume if you are in a sim where taking public collars without consent is part of the etiquette, then it´s fine, but I would consider it rude, or even harassment if it´s outside of those specific sims.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, StarlanderGoods said:

The idea that people have explicit permission to do everything that the system allows to do to another avatar is not a well thought out one.  Just try to extrapolate it to other situations and you will see it falls flat nearly inmediately.  Specially if we consider how immersive SL can be.

Ill give you a silly example, I dont like people standing too close to me in SL, if someone does, I move away, if they kept following me, I could AR them for harassment, despite it being allowed by the system mechanics themselves.

With the public collar, I asume if you are in a sim where taking public collars without consent is part of the etiquette, then it´s fine, but I would consider it rude, or even harassment if it´s outside of those specific sims.

As I pointed out previously, there is a range of finer grained permission settings to allow varying degrees of interactivity to a point I would say it is actually well thought out. I tried it with an alt on my current collar and in spite of the Public setting, there was little the alt could do beyond leashing my main avatar. Attempts to insert the alt as an Owner or changing the Trust levels and or any of the more in depth RLV settings, were all blocked and resulted in a warning that the particular setting change was not authorized for the alt.

As to your example I would suggest that for a greater equivalency one would have to have a Touch Me Not or a wearable avatar bubble to stop others coming too close and then set it to normal secondlife default and yet AR when others come in too close because you didn't expand the safe zone to a comfortable distance. If the tools are there but you don't use them, the onus lies on the wearer, not the one using it to the level allowed.

The collars I tried were by default set to a non accessible state so that the owner needs to set permissions in a way that allows random public interactions.

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 2/18/2022 at 8:12 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

If a collar is set to public access, then I consider it a permission setting that allows you to do exactly that, even if the particular context isn't ideal. It was those sort of grabs that taught and reminded me to check what my collar settings were before I went out shopping for example.

6 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If someone sets their collar to allow public access, I see it as a Explicit prior permission and one can really not complain if another then does that. It is no different then if one sets the permissions of strippable clothing, spankers, head patters etc to allow anyone to do so. The Authorization and Access page is really quite self explanatory:

You needed unwanted grabs to teach you the really quite self explanatory settings?

It's easy to forget being new, yet new people are the future of any community. Those who have a bad initial experience might leave to spread the news of it. I previously mentioned calls for help in the OpenCollar group. I imagine they're the tip of an iceberg. This is why the BDSM community stresses explicit consent. Contexts are often not ideal, so reading implicit consent from them is needlessly risky for both parties.

Dominants must also consent. Because reading consent from context isn't always easy, to the extent a submissive avoids discussion in pursuit of excitement, the dominant is exposed to the risk of ending up in an untenable situation. When both parties are new to the scene and tools, the potential for things to go wrong is high. Absent clear ethical standards permeating the community, the apparent imbalance of power in D/s will lead to a drift towards actual imbalance. One can't advocate for the "school of hard knocks" approach to gaining experience in BDSM without implicitly condoning hard knocking.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

14 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

If someone sets their collar to allow public access, I see it as a Explicit prior permission and one can really not complain if another then does that. It is no different then if one sets the permissions of strippable clothing, spankers, head patters etc to allow anyone to do so. The Authorization and Access page is really quite self explanatory:

 

 

and even with allowing public access, there is a somewhat limited range of controls one has unless RLV is enabled in the viewer and an RLV relay if one is into bondage stuff. Perhaps the issue here is whether one is looking for a long term Master or Domme vs being available for a session lasting a few hours or days. Then yes, I can see it would be best to check out whether a dom/me and sub are looking for the same level of play but those sort aren't usually setting their collars to Public. Maybe the collar developers should be asked what the intent is in coding the Public setting rather then only allowing specific people or groups to access a collar. The way I interpret it and I think any subs I have known over the years, is that when it is set to Public, anyone is allowed to grab it without necessarily asking for specific and express permission.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Not only are the kinds of interactions that might potentially result from a D/s relationship vastly broader and potentially much more invasive than "strippable clothing, spankers, [and] head patters" -- the nature of the interpersonal interaction is entirely different.

Being led about on a leash doesn't make you a "sub." Being blindfolded, tied up, or subjected to "punishment" doesn't make you a sub.

Being a sub involves engaging in a contractual relationship with a Dom(me). It is founded upon a power-exchange, but more than this, it works at a deep emotional level which relies upon consent, mutual understanding, and mutual care.

Stop confusing "kink" with D/s or BDSM. If you're wandering around with an open collar just waiting for someone you don't even know to activate it, you are role playing a "sub," you are emphatically not "being" one.

And even given the limited scope of what you are doing, you are still enabling a situation that is ripe for abuse or misunderstanding.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Drake1 Nightfire]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Not only are the kinds of interactions that might potentially result from a D/s relationship vastly broader and potentially much more invasive than "strippable clothing, spankers, [and] head patters" -- the nature of the interpersonal interaction is entirely different.

Being led about on a leash doesn't make you a "sub." Being blindfolded, tied up, or subjected to "punishment" doesn't make you a sub.

Being a sub involves engaging in a contractual relationship with a Dom(me). It is founded upon a power-exchange, but more than this, it works at a deep emotional level which relies upon consent, mutual understanding, and mutual care.

Stop confusing "kink" with D/s or BDSM. If you're wandering around with an open collar just waiting for someone you don't even know to activate it, you are role playing a "sub," you are emphatically not "being" one.

And even given the limited scope of what you are doing, you are still enabling a situation that is ripe for abuse or misunderstanding.

[Arielle Popstar]

Deleted

Edited February 22, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Arielle Popstar]

18 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

You needed unwanted grabs to teach you the really quite self explanatory settings?

To remind me to change the collar or settings when I was out in public to shop etc.

Quote

 

It's easy to forget being new, yet new people are the future of any community. Those who have a bad initial experience might leave to spread the news of it. I previously mentioned calls for help in the OpenCollar group. I imagine they're the tip of an iceberg. This is why the BDSM community stresses explicit consent. Contexts are often not ideal, so reading implicit consent from them is needlessly risky for both parties.

Dominants must also consent. Because reading consent from context isn't always easy, to the extent a submissive avoids discussion in pursuit of excitement, the dominant is exposed to the risk of ending up in an untenable situation. When both parties are new to the scene and tools, the potential for things to go wrong is high. Absent clear ethical standards permeating the community, the apparent imbalance of power in D/s will lead to a drift towards actual imbalance. One can't advocate for the "school of hard knocks" approach to gaining experience in BDSM without implicitly condoning hard knocking.

 

You already pointed out the ultimate solution:

 

Quote

I've never understood the idea that SL Dom/mes hold all the power. Submission is the ball that's brought to the game. One click of the "X" and the submissive takes it home.

I'll also point out that in even my limited exposure to the bondage side, in almost all cases in memory, an authorization dialogue box came up asking if I consented to xyz RLV appliance acting on my input controls, view and/or pose. To be honest I find them a pain and it really takes away from the experience to have to constantly check Allow but that in itself should be more then enough to satisfy you that ethical standards are being applied at the very least through the scripting. 

 

[Coffee Pancake]

A dialog box is not consent.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

A dialog box is not consent.

 

It is when it will only allow the RLV toy to act on my controls and/or view. Consent in writing in fact.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

I was gonna share a hot/dumb take, but I'll come back in 10 pages when these ones dry out.

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I was gonna share a hot/dumb take, but I'll come back in 10 pages when these ones dry out.

Tease!!!

...sets you on fire.

[Madelaine McMasters]

49 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You already pointed out the ultimate solution:

Quote

I've never understood the idea that SL Dom/mes hold all the power. Submission is the ball that's brought to the game. One click of the "X" and the submissive takes it home.

I said I don't understand the idea, which is believed by people on both sides of the D/s dynamic. I also do what I can to counter it. In an ideal world, everyone would feel free to click "X", and never have reason to. To get to that ultimate solution, we need education on both sides.

[Quistess Alpha]

I might have skimmed some prior posts, but my 'hot take':

As much as always dealing in very explicit consent (Ex. a profile pick saying: "If my collar is unlocked you may lock it and do anything you want.") can make things smoother for everyone involved, it's not always the most practical or the most fun. So most of the time, one has to deal in rather grey, 'levels of confidence' in consent; Perhaps someone's in a rather BDSM focused sim, wearing a collar on public or with a 'capture' mode, they ~probably expect that someone might take advantage of those things, but perhaps they just didn't know how things worked and forgot to change things back to 'normal' settings. So, what to do? Some of my general rules/ethics:

• Try not to click someone's stuff without starting a conversation first. Coming back after being AFK and finding something different can startle people and make something that would normally be ok feel bad or alarming.
• Soft confirm after (or before) doing something. I usually go with the the tried and true "I did XYZ, how does that make you feel?" especially when I don't know the person at all or not very well. Once you get to know a person, you can kinda intuit that squirming, blushing, gulping etc. might be signs that they approve of what you just did, but it takes a bit of time to figure that out. One persons 'gulp' might mean "That sounds awesome!" while another's might mean "I'd let you do that, but I'd really like to avoid it, or roleplay trying to avoid it."
• Go slowly and incrementally. Don't capture a random person's collar, set their relay to auto, do all the restrictions in the list and put on all their gear from their folders, all at once. Despite what some people above seem to have suggested, configuring toys so that people can only do things that you like is non-trivial. Maybe a person likes having their IMs taken, but doesn't like being blinded, but the menus on their stuff gives you both options. This is where the previous point comes in.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Quistess Alpha
Capitalization.

[Arielle Popstar]

17 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Not only are the kinds of interactions that might potentially result from a D/s relationship vastly broader and potentially much more invasive than "strippable clothing, spankers, [and] head patters" -- the nature of the interpersonal interaction is entirely different.

Really? I disagree. I often see them used as the "foreplay" for the broader and more invasive type of interpersonal interactions. I have seen and met virtual Domme's over the years that required spankers and strip clothing on their subs.

 

Quote

 

Being led about on a leash doesn't make you a "sub." Being blindfolded, tied up, or subjected to "punishment" doesn't make you a sub.

Being a sub involves engaging in a contractual relationship with a Dom(me). It is founded upon a power-exchange, but more than this, it works at a deep emotional level which relies upon consent, mutual understanding, and mutual care.

Stop confusing "kink" with D/s or BDSM. If you're wandering around with an open collar just waiting for someone you don't even know to activate it, you are role playing a "sub," you are emphatically not "being" one.

And even given the limited scope of what you are doing, you are still enabling a situation that is ripe for abuse or misunderstanding.

 

I agree,  no leash, blindfold, restraint nor punishments make me a sub but they are the outward signs I submitted to the will of another by my own free will. It is my choices which point to the willingness to be submissive.

One is not born a submissive and though time and circumstance can make one fearful and victimized, a good submissive is one by choice rather then because they have to be from either fear or past abuse.

The start of a contractual relationship can be done with a virtual handshake, wink and a nod or a 50 page written contract, I prefer the former and suspect you like the latter. The deep emotional levels comes after a time where the actions involving consent, understanding, and care are proven to be mutual, not by the mere promises to be.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players

I'm not alone in playing a role and neither are you. We simply practice our roles until they become second nature. As a r/l submissive once told me years ago, a submissive who believes they were born a submissive should probably recover from that first or they will never be able to make the choice to be one. There can be no power exchange if  one has no power to begin with. I suspect the same applies to a lot of Dom/mes.

The limited scope of what I have shared gives you not nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement for what I may or may not be enabling for abuse or misunderstanding.

 

[Quistess Alpha]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Really? I disagree. I often see them used as the "foreplay" for the broader and more invasive type of interpersonal interactions. I have seen and met virtual Domme's over the years that required spankers and strip clothing on their subs.

One can use a pencil to write things and do homework. One might also use a pencil as a shank to try and off someone. Same object, different contexts and uses.

(Sorry I couldn't think up a less gruesome analogy off the top of my head.)

[Madelaine McMasters]

29 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

One can use a pencil to write things and do homework.

Always a pencil, never a pen. I make too many mistakes. If I want to off someone, I'll use an icicle.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Madelaine McMasters