Question For Those Familiar With Old Guard

[guest010609]

This question is directed toward those here who might be more familiar with Old Guard culture than I am... I often use the term "consentual nonconsent" to describe my Master's and my relationship. I picked up this term many years ago from a friend who was significantly older than I.

She had been the slave of an Old Guard Mistress for several years when she was young. If I am remembering correctly, she explained that the term came out of the Old Guard culture. Again, provided I remember correctly, she explained that during the time of the gay leather culture's prominence, these sort of arrangements were more common since in that culture there was no tolorance of a slave having limits and certainly not of them having free will to leave their Masters.

Consequently, more than a few slaves attempted to escape their slavery to which their was an explicit promise of consentual nonconsent. However, unlike today where no slave contract would stand up in court and a person suspected of abuse can still easily be arrested despite a bdsm history, at that time- due to the nature of main stream culture and their disdain for gays, these complaints which came before law enforcement were essentially given no merit. There was basically the view that "if one fag beats up another fag, who gives a shit?"

That lack of ability on the part of the slaves to find adequite help resulted in the slave's contracts being gravely enforced by their Masters, and truly created the possibility of consentual nonconsent in a society that prohibits the ownership of another human being. As Old Guard were notoriously built around rigid rules and honor of one's words and deeds, it was taken as a severe crime within the community for a slave's attempted escape from what they had once agreed to "forever".

Now, my question is basically, is my information correct? Is there any further info that anyone could share on this topic? It has been 10 years since I knew this woman and much of what she said has faded from my mind. However, I am rather certain that this is all correct. If not, please feel free to let me know. Since I often must explain my relationship dynamic to others, both in and out of the lifestyle, the last thing I want to do is spread incorrect or misremembered facts. Thank you!-- MB

[Flaming_Redhead]

I've never heard that, but it's rather difficult to find much information on Old Guard practices. I can't imagine why a master or slave of that era would go through all the trouble to get into the lifestyle and then lose all credibility in the community. *shrugs* I hope someone here knows something about it since my curiosity has been piqued.

[MasterDragon]

There is a lot out there if you know where too look. Remember the IDEA of old guard was the mentoring and passing of tradition of safety and knowledge. Such as do not break your toys to such degree irreparable status. I have not heard that since I was young mind you I am only 28 so it was through the stories of my Mistress. The old way was to be a bottom for a length of time. Such as a slave for 5 years was the minimum, so as to be taught how to be a Master. Upon receiving your Stripes you were given the token of Masterhood/Mistresshood, mine such a knotted flogger. Until recently I thought the old ways were still practiced. Such if you were a horrible Master the society could remove your status.


Here are some links on the information you seek. Also I am Old Guard Tradition so any question, just ask. Remember one thing. Old Guard makes there own rules of how the relationship goes as long as they are within the guidelines and codes.


http://www.iron-rose.com/vijohnson/docs/blic1197.htm
This person is kinda giving up.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/thecastle/resume.html
This person is spot on in most of the old ways except for this:
Secrecy was the price to pay for the knowledge, and forged in the Steel Rite was the honored Silence vow.
Thus being a hypocrite for speaking the knowledge and allowing contact for more info and that line together. The Rites are correct. But his incestuous views are also crap not to mention his math.

http://www.leatherviews.com/kinkyinfo/9930.htm
As I like this man's writings there is one thing he misses. The 'Old Guard' is a state of mind and moral code. Much more than that it is tradition representation. The old guard is a figment to keep stict safety and moral code law.

http://www.iron-rose.com/IR/docs/olddays.htm
A final subpoint to the above is that any "Old Guard" which existed at the time did not widely see itself as such. Instead, they were more like, as the song lyric goes "just a bunch of people, doin' the best they could."

So to close and recap I know that the Old Guard is one thing.

Tradition.

[MasterDragon]

Indeed, there is a vast amount information available on the net if you know the correct corridors to tread. Congradulations on your achievements Dragon and thank you for the interesting links.However, I must point out that none of the information pertains to the question asked by my Bitch.-BitchsMaster96

Ahh that is were you are wrong. I did answer it. That is not a logical term and it is not within any of the Old Guard teachings that I know. Also I did state that people teach differently. The answer is that she is right and wrong.

[guest010609]

Ahh that is were you are wrong. I did answer it. That is not a logical term and it is not within any of the Old Guard teachings that I know. Also I did state that people teach differently. The answer is that she is right and wrong.

I'm confused too by your responses to be honest. I didn't and don't understand your answer to my question. I think I'm most confused because of you saying "that is not a logical term". What term are you refering to here? I was thinking at first you meant "consentual nonconsent", however, I can't imagine what is illogical about it. If I need to explain better, please just ask me to... rather than saying that it is an illogical term, ok? No offense is intended by this post... but I am genuinely confused... what part was right? And what part was wrong?

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I started learning BDSM (it was just S&M to us at the time) in the mid-60's. My mentor was an old biker that had been active since the mid-50's. I imagine you already know that a lot of what is considered Old Guard was derived from the post-war biker culture. To the best of my knowledge, his group was run based on similar protocols. Again we didn't have such names for things, just strict rules. Getting information was a slow cumbersome process, or at least it was for us. Honor, respect, keeping your word, code of silence, etc were absolutes. If the gay leather community ran theirs the same way we ran ours, then that mistress was essentially correct. Getting in was difficult, getting out was difficult. Given where I was geographically (deep south, not near a major city) we were pretty isolated and did not interact with any of the gay leather groups at the time. So I can't say for sure but it seems reasonable within the framework I knew back then.

[thepast]

The problem with the term "consensual nonconsent" is that it is implying the negative--that you are consenting to the inability to consent. Which is a wordsmithing way to say you are consenting to having no say. The reality is that it flat out isn't realistic. You are ALWAYS making choices--even when you choose not to make a choice, that's a choice in & of itself. Unless your brain is ripped out, your cognitive functions continually make decisions between A & B-- it's just the way animals are.

As for your question about Old Guard. MasterDragon hit the nail on the head in terms of what Old Guard really is & really stands for. It has nothing to do with play, which is why you have such a hard time finding useful information on it. The current trend & "revolution" of BDSM has landed BDSM more mainstream because it's tended to shy away from the extreme edges of Old Guard & its historical roots & more towards the masses. Old Guard, as MD noted, was all about tradition, mentoring, knowledge. Things are passed down from one Dominant to another, from sub to sub. It's more of a culture, an ethos. It's about understanding your role & place in the greater structure, and understanding the world's interactions with you.

Having babbled enough about that...
Old Guard has no such thing as "consensual nonconsent" in its dicta or tradition. It's built on the notion, as MD mentioned, that you don't break your toys--you treat your property with respect and you treat others' property with respect. What Old Guard calls a submissive, would in "new terminology", now be loosely be defined as a slave. What Old Guard considers a bottom is now what many submissives are. It's partially just a terminology gap, and partially it's an end of a BDSM era as the mainstream BDSM culture starts to shift to the left. It isn't a bad thing, it just *is*. It's harder to find true-type Old Guard & Old School folks now & will continue to be because there is an ever shrinking community from which to learn such tradition. You can't be true-type Old School unless you were trained by an Old School Dominant--why? Because by definition, that's what Old School is. Again, it's also why it is dying off so fast--because there are fewer & fewer trained Old School Dominants & submissives around. But they know eachother when they see eachother. It's a thing you just learn how to observe.

That all being said...

Call yourself whatever you want--if calling yourself a consensual non-consent slave/sub/whatever and it works for you, then great. If you like that label for yourself, use it. It doesn't matter where it comes from---or even if you make it up---it just matters if it works for you... those who know/understand what you want/are will know & inquire... those who don't were never meant to cross paths with you anyway...

Just my two cents as always...

As for what I describe myself as... *shrugs* if you want to know, just ask.

[guest010609]

The problem with the term "consensual nonconsent" is that it is implying the negative--that you are consenting to the inability to consent. Which is a wordsmithing way to say you are consenting to having no say. The reality is that it flat out isn't realistic. You are ALWAYS making choices--even when you choose not to make a choice, that's a choice in & of itself. Unless your brain is ripped out, your cognitive functions continually make decisions between A & B-- it's just the way animals are.

As for your question about Old Guard. MasterDragon hit the nail on the head in terms of what Old Guard really is & really stands for. It has nothing to do with play, which is why you have such a hard time finding useful information on it. The current trend & "revolution" of BDSM has landed BDSM more mainstream because it's tended to shy away from the extreme edges of Old Guard & its historical roots & more towards the masses. Old Guard, as MD noted, was all about tradition, mentoring, knowledge. Things are passed down from one Dominant to another, from sub to sub. It's more of a culture, an ethos. It's about understanding your role & place in the greater structure, and understanding the world's interactions with you.

Having babbled enough about that...
Old Guard has no such thing as "consensual nonconsent" in its dicta or tradition. It's built on the notion, as MD mentioned, that you don't break your toys--you treat your property with respect and you treat others' property with respect. What Old Guard calls a submissive, would in "new terminology", now be loosely be defined as a slave. What Old Guard considers a bottom is now what many submissives are. It's partially just a terminology gap, and partially it's an end of a BDSM era as the mainstream BDSM culture starts to shift to the left. It isn't a bad thing, it just *is*. It's harder to find true-type Old Guard & Old School folks now & will continue to be because there is an ever shrinking community from which to learn such tradition. You can't be true-type Old School unless you were trained by an Old School Dominant--why? Because by definition, that's what Old School is. Again, it's also why it is dying off so fast--because there are fewer & fewer trained Old School Dominants & submissives around. But they know eachother when they see eachother. It's a thing you just learn how to observe.

That all being said...

Call yourself whatever you want--if calling yourself a consensual non-consent slave/sub/whatever and it works for you, then great. If you like that label for yourself, use it. It doesn't matter where it comes from---or even if you make it up---it just matters if it works for you... those who know/understand what you want/are will know & inquire... those who don't were never meant to cross paths with you anyway...

Just my two cents as always...

As for what I describe myself as... *shrugs* if you want to know, just ask.

Well, ok... I'm willing to accept that my info regarding it being an Old Guard term may well be incorrect. As I said, I couldn't fully remember and that's why I wanted input.

However, I have to disagree with you on the "negative" concept of consentual nonconsent. What I believe you are saying is that it is a negative sounding term to many because of the implication of a lack of ability to consent or not. However, isn't that merely a matter of perspective, delia? I mean... that is precisely what it means at least in my relationship, but I don't view that as a negative... it is that very thing that makes me feel safe, secure and truly owned.

I also very much disagree with the idea that this can not really exist. Allow me to explain... the whole concept is based around agreeing all at once to anything that may occur in the future. So the slave is agreeing that if at any time in the future they were to resist anything which they had previously consented to- even if that consent was given years before- that their Master does have the right to ignore any objection and even use significant force in order to accomplish whatever act they wished the slave the perform or have exacted upon them. You seem to be saying that a slave can always change their mind down the line making it meaningless... however, that is precisely what this term and usage of consent is designed to eliminate- the possibility of changing their mind. Honestly, I don't see what's so difficult to understand about removing your own choices for the future in one big life-changing decision.

I do understand why most people would be unwilling to agree to unknown possibilities at an unknown time in the future and that is fine. However, just because it is not for most people... it isn't fair to say that it is negative. Also, because something is difficult to understand... and I admit, this is... doesn't make it nonexistent. It does not make it invalid. I will say though that enforcing this consent comes down to "how far is the slave willing to go to avoid what they had already agreed to?" as well as "how far is the master willing to go to enforce the previous consent?" Those are questions that no one can answer but the individuals involved in every individual relationship.

[thepast]

MB, read up into my post. We cross-posted but I think in paragraph 1 I am illustrating what the "problem" with your terminology is... ~smiles~

[thepast]

Nope. I didn't say it was a negative term in the sense you are saying. You are implying I have a negative view of the term or believe it to be "wrong." THAT would be incorrect. So hopefully you didn't read into that incorrectly.

I meant linguistically, the term implies the negative: consentual non-consent IMPLIES consenting to not consenting to doing something--it's "negative"-- sort of saying "I agree not to agree not to do something"-- it's a negative negative.

That being said.

It IS formalistically unrealistic. Substantively, I understand what you are saying--you would consider yourself a no-limits slave. But formalistically, by implying that you consented to never choosing, that's a choice in & of itself, AND is also not feasible unless you don't have a brain. Neurologically, humans make decisions consistently--if only between A & B, they are still making decisions. You choose to allow your Dominant to treat you as he does--that's a choice EVERYtime he does something... Whether or not you want/are willing to admit it--that is another decision you have.

On the other hand, from the realist/substantive perspective, I understand you would consider yourself to not make your own decisions, but to have your Dominant make them for you. That is what you mean by "consenting non-consensual."

But... let's call apples apples... you made the decision, the choice if you will, every time your Dominant makes a decision to follow it... you could choose not to follow it--it's your choice, it's your submission, that drives you to do what he wishes. If you don't, there are consequences--everything up to & including perhaps ending the dynamic the way it's set up... but again, it's a choice.

THAT was my point. ~grins~

[guest010609]

Nope. I didn't say it was a negative term in the sense you are saying. You are implying I have a negative view of the term or believe it to be "wrong." THAT would be incorrect. So hopefully you didn't read into that incorrectly.

I meant linguistically, the term implies the negative: consentual non-consent IMPLIES consenting to not consenting to doing something--it's "negative"-- sort of saying "I agree not to agree not to do something"-- it's a negative negative.

That being said.

It IS formalistically unrealistic. Substantively, I understand what you are saying--you would consider yourself a no-limits slave. But formalistically, by implying that you consented to never choosing, that's a choice in & of itself, AND is also not feasible unless you don't have a brain. Neurologically, humans make decisions consistently--if only between A & B, they are still making decisions. You choose to allow your Dominant to treat you as he does--that's a choice EVERYtime he does something... Whether or not you want/are willing to admit it--that is another decision you have.

On the other hand, from the realist/substantive perspective, I understand you would consider yourself to not make your own decisions, but to have your Dominant make them for you. That is what you mean by "consenting non-consensual."

But... let's call apples apples... you made the decision, the choice if you will, every time your Dominant makes a decision to follow it... you could choose not to follow it--it's your choice, it's your submission, that drives you to do what he wishes. If you don't, there are consequences--everything up to & including perhaps ending the dynamic the way it's set up... but again, it's a choice.

THAT was my point. ~grins~

Yep, you're right I misunderstood what you meant by "negative"... however, I still stand by that the term makes sense if you look at it from the right angle. However, if you disagree... hey no skin off my nose- I didn't create the term lol. Regarding it being a continual choice to follow... well, that is exactly why it is what it is. Because there is no other option. There are plenty of times that I do not want a scene... or even a chunk of my life to go the way it does, but there is no option in this arrangement. See, I think perhaps where you and I are looking at this differently is that ... you see it as something that has potential for change or as you phrased it "ending the dynamic the way it's set up". That is the exact crux of the whole thing, right there. There is no way that I could "end the dynamic the way it's set up". There is no "out", no way to change it... no way to end it. And that is my point lol.

[MasterDragon]

Nope. I didn't say it was a negative term in the sense you are saying. You are implying I have a negative view of the term or believe it to be "wrong." THAT would be incorrect. So hopefully you didn't read into that incorrectly.

I meant linguistically, the term implies the negative: consentual non-consent IMPLIES consenting to not consenting to doing something--it's "negative"-- sort of saying "I agree not to agree not to do something"-- it's a negative negative.

That being said.

It IS formalistically unrealistic. Substantively, I understand what you are saying--you would consider yourself a no-limits slave. But formalistically, by implying that you consented to never choosing, that's a choice in & of itself, AND is also not feasible unless you don't have a brain. Neurologically, humans make decisions consistently--if only between A & B, they are still making decisions. You choose to allow your Dominant to treat you as he does--that's a choice EVERYtime he does something... Whether or not you want/are willing to admit it--that is another decision you have.

On the other hand, from the realist/substantive perspective, I understand you would consider yourself to not make your own decisions, but to have your Dominant make them for you. That is what you mean by "consenting non-consensual."

But... let's call apples apples... you made the decision, the choice if you will, every time your Dominant makes a decision to follow it... you could choose not to follow it--it's your choice, it's your submission, that drives you to do what he wishes. If you don't, there are consequences--everything up to & including perhaps ending the dynamic the way it's set up... but again, it's a choice.

THAT was my point. ~grins~

This is exactly what I was meaning. First I would like to say your brain turns me on. Second thing I would like to say I am a literal and logical person. It it's literal sense it is illogical, in its implied meaning it is beautiful. I just call it my slave. Thus opens the age old question to people in this life style which are you? Master or Dominant, slave or submissive or switch. Remember some of them are in a classification all their own. All are open today for interpretation.

My word for today is interpretation.

[thepast]

Ahhh that's a personal decision on your part--but that isn't "life." You CHOOSE to still stay, you CHOOSE to limit your out options. I am not saying you are right or wrong--I respect you & your decision--it's yours to make, not mine or anyone else's... I was simply providing a counter-point to the notion that consensual nonconsent is what you were saying it is--sure, if you look a realism/substantive view. But from a formalist perspective, it's impossible... that was my point ~smiles~

I wish you well.

[BdamGuy]

very good stuff around here