5th January 2026: So-Called Consensual So-Called Non-Consent

this is one about words and where they fail us, not morality. this is also not a full argumentation for a new framework, but rather a gesture towards future considerations on the topic. the seams are all pretty visible here – that there is a difference between what someone says they want and what they actually want is taken for granted, for instance – but i hope you will read this as honest engagement with the discourse surrounding my favourite hobby.

massive creds to my flatmate for helping with (read: doing all) the research on this one. also creds to M— for feedback.

Context

When kinksters write about their engagement with consensual non-consent play, they tend to be on the defensive. Kink educators AncillaL and vahavta have both put out snarky (quite funny) posts in response to people trying to poke holes in what a consensual non-consent dynamic even means. While, as vahavta outlines in her post, In Search of a definition of CNC, there are serious points of contention even among kinksters who engage with this type of play in good faith, there is generally a push for the reputation of this kink in specific to be upheld.

This essay is less about the ethics or reputation of consensual non-consent, and more about the words and what they mean. The party line is this: consensual non-consent is consensual. The corollary to this is that consensual is synonymous with moral, but that’s something to be problematised some other time. The issue I am concerned with right now is that something in the party line seems to be off, but what that is depends on what a consensual non-consent dynamic even means. Loathe am I to admit it, but perhaps the pedants in the comments have a point.

What follows is a demarcation between different types of play that are all termed “consensual non-consent”. This is not as concerned with lifestyle dynamics that involve consensual non-consent, but the language and argumentation for why it is consensual overlaps in writing on both topics. I do not expect the terminology I introduced to be widely picked up, nor is that the intention here. I am also not trying to shame or call-out any educators in particular or any type of play in general. Instead, I am pushing for a more nuanced understanding of what is meant by consent, and how it factors into my favourite kink of dynamic to play with. To quote AncillaL, “Things are complicated and complicated things should be discussed exhaustively.”

Consent

Firstly, for the sake of this essay, a working definition of consent can be derived from the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Consent is an agreement by choice to a form of sex, where the person granting consent has both the freedom and the capacity to make that choice. Furthermore, consent can be withdrawn at any time. This is maybe not the most nuanced definition ever, but we can problematise that in another essay.

CNC

Consensual non-consent (CNC) is a form of Dominant/submissive (D/s) play where the D-type consensually violates the consent of the s-type. This appears to be self-contradictory on the surface of it, which is because CNC refers to three distinct forms of play. Kink discourse is annoying enough already without adding even more terms to things, but there is a necessity in this case. Here, I’ll demarcate these three forms as explicitly consensual non-consent (ECNC), implicitly consensual non-consent (ICNC), and negotiated non-consent (NNC).

It is worth noting at this point that the following forms of CNC themselves may be porous. There are dynamics and scenes where an s-type may be explicitly able to consent, but implicitly unable through their own dedication not to safeword. These sorts of headspaces and the impact of lifestyle dynamics, identities grounded in kink, and social pressure on individual scenes have an impact on consent that is not considered in this essay, but does complicate the framework I am proposing. With that in mind:

ECNC is a form of D/s play where the D-type and s-type act out a consent violation. In this form of play, “no” and “stop” cease to mean no and stop, but there are still commands that can be given to indicate these things. Safewords are generally recommended by kink educators for this, where “red” or “safeword” might mean stop, and the D-type is expected to follow this command. If there is a gag or impediments otherwise to actually saying safewords, pre-arranged hand signals or tapping might be used to indicate the s-type actually wants to stop.

ICNC is a form of D/s play where the D-type and s-type act out a consent violation, however this time without safewords or hand signals – that is, without explicit commands that mean no or stop. In this type of CNC, the D-type is expected to intuitively understand what they can do to the s-type beyond what the s-type believes they can handle. There is still a limit where consent is violated that the D-type must take care to work within, however. This limit is also variable, for example if the s-type goes non-responsive before the scene starts, it’s probably best not to continue at all even if they can usually take lashings with a whip. Similarly, if they are taking lashings with a whip better than normal and seem excited by the sight of their own blood, the D-type may wish to push things by reaching for their knife. Crucially, the s-type still wants what is happening to them, and this play exists to overcome the initial self-imposed barriers to achieving that.

NNC is a form of D/s play where the s-type waives their consent. This happens through a negotiation where boundaries are established, and then play proceeds beyond both what the s-type says that they want and actually does want in the context of the scene. To understand what it means to have boundaries outwith consent, I need to further examine what constitutes a consent violation.

C“NC”

The “non-consent” aspect of ECNC and ICNC is misleading. Here, “non-consent” refers to the illusion of a consent violation rather than anything that would substantively contradict our working definition of consent.

I did a scene with my flatmate some months ago where I was bound, gagged, and caned on my hands and feet 111 times total. I was screaming at him to stop throughout and he did not. However, we did establish that tapping with my hand on the bench upon which I was restrained would end the scene. As such, this was an ECNC scene. I was freely agreeing to the sex, and I had the capacity to continue agreeing by way of having the capacity to explicitly say stop. The only things that made it at all seem like “non-consent” were the sounds I was making.

I did a different scene with my flatmate some months ago where he was the one who was bound, gagged, and caned. I chained him to a frame and beat him so severely that he couldn’t scream, his eyes unfocussed, and he went completely non-responsive. He had stopped even asking me to stop. I ended the scene there and took him into an aftercare room. This was an ICNC scene. He freely agreed to the sex, and had the capacity to continue to agree by way of having the capacity to imply he wanted more through continuing to engage in the scene dynamic – up until he dissociated. As we talked in aftercare, he said that there was nothing we did that he didn’t want. I went up to his limit, up to the line of “non-consent”, and I didn’t cross it.

After that scene, we talked more about dissociation and what we want to explore in our play. He said he wanted to see what it felt like for me to continue after I reached his limit. We negotiated some very loose boundaries and then did another scene back at my place. I overpowered and slapped him until he dissociated, and then fingered him until he was able to focus again. I made it a game, to see how many times I could do that back and forth. This is a NNC scene. While he freely agreed to the sex initially, he did not have the capacity to continue to agree after the point which he dissociated. This time, we substantively engaged in “non-consent” play.

“C”NC

In what way can this play then be termed “consensual”? For ECNC and ICNC this is obvious in that the consent violations are illusory. NNC however involves substantive consent violation. Is it possible for NNC to be “consensual”?

The argument made to defend NNC style play – something that can be present in “no limits” scenes, total power exchange dynamics, and intox kink – is that someone can in fact consent once in perpetuity. We can term this the “irrevocable consent” argument. The “irrevocable consent” argument goes as follows:

1. Consent is when you give permission for something to happen.
2. This permission need only be granted once and lasts however long it has been agreed to last.
3. Anything that has been permitted is thus consensual within that timeframe, regardless of your feelings as it happens.

To put it another way, borrowing an off-hand turn of phrase from AncillaL, this is “overarching consent to violate proximal consent”.

On the surface, this differs from my proposed working definition of consent because “irrevocable consent” cannot be withdrawn. The further implication of this is that “irrevocable consent” does not need to be continuous, whereas my proposed working definition requires continuous agreement to sex, or else the capacity and freedom to choose to have that sex at any given moment is compromised.

I do not think this contradiction between these two definitions of consent can be resolved. “Irrevocable consent” does not include capacity as a necessary pre-requisite for granting consent. This supposes that one can consent to something they do not understand, and that they are obliged to follow through with this consent regardless of how their understanding of themselves or the acts they are expected to perform change. Rather than using “irrevocable consent” to shore-up the morality of NNC style play, which I believe renders consent a near-meaningless framework instead of a useful tool for preventing sexual assault and date rape, it simplifies the matter to accept that NNC is not “consensual”.

Negotiating Beyond Consent

If it’s not “consensual”, the operative part of NNC is then “negotiated”. I consider negotiation in a kink context to mean a discussion of compatibility, risk profiles, dis/interests, hopes, fears, and finally establishing context for a scene. By context in this case, I mean trying to find an erotic, narrative, or conceptual throughline while expressing boundaries.

It may seem odd at first to talk about boundaries in a “non-consent” scene, but boundaries and consent are distinct. Going back to the original definition of NNC, I said that consent was “waived”. In practical terms, this means that the s-type has agreed not to call the cops or write a call-out post of the D-type on fetlife if they find themselves actually wanting the scene to stop and the D-type keeps going. However, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t still limits on play.

As a final example, I am planning a scene with my flatmate later this month. We’ve been referring to it as Just the Whip. I am going to be partially suspended on a frame and my flatmate is going to whip me for minimum one hour. It is at an event and one of our pals will be there to make sure no one stops the scene regardless of what I say or do. There will be no warm-up. It is going to hurt the whole time. In fact, I am pretty sure that at some point I will want the scene to end, both explicitly and implicitly, and it will continue. My consent is going to be violated, but the scene is Just the Whip. If my flatmate came at me with a knife part way through then he would be finding another place to live that same evening. The actual content of the scene is bounded by what we have negotiated. The content of the scene is also bounded in a logistical sense as well. My flatmate cannot, for example, tie the whip around my arm and break my elbow because then we would need to go to the hospital and he would most likely get arrested. There are still consequences to his actions, even if there will not be the same kind of punitive repercussions to him violating my consent per se.

“CNC”

In this way, there is no “consensual” “non-consent”. This may seem like I am another pedant in the comments arguing over semantics, which in a strict sense I have been, but “CNC” is a misnomer that obfuscates how consent is preserved differently in ECNC and ICNC scenes, and downplays the emotional impact and risks of NNC. We need to understand when our play is consensual, how it is consensual, and whether it goes beyond consent if we want to negotiate these sorts of scenes with each other. While this is clearly important from a safer sex angle, I believe that understanding these particulars can lead to better sex. It is possible to have your consent violated while still having strict boundaries, and jesus christ is it fun.