The CNC conversation reminds me of a British case called R v Morgan from my undergrad days. Also if you are old enough on Kenyan twitter remember the "Morris nimesurrender" saga of 2015 Anywhere, back to the story. A solider called William invited 3 of his buddies to come have sex with his wife He however had told them that she was "kinky," loved being forced, and that they should completely ignore her screaming, fighting, and crying as it was roleplay she usually did to heighten her arousal. Najua... stay with me So the guys show up to the house, they held her down and had their way with her. She fought back as hard as she could but they overwhelmed her When they were arrested and arraigned In court, the men used a strange defense. They argued they didn't have the intent (mens rea) to rape because, thanks to the husband's lie, they honestly believed she was consenting The case was before 5 judges. It went straight to the wire. In a deeply controversial 3-2 decision, the House of Lords ruled that if a man has an "honest belief" that a woman is consenting (even if that belief is completely unreasonable and based on absurd grounds) he cannot be convicted of rape. They were acquited So in this world of "safe words"the consent framework around CNC is so incredibly murky. I AM NOT SAYING ADULTS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING or cannot navigate such complexities. Just that ​by definition, CNC requires participants to explicitly ignore the word "no." It is the intentional blurring of actual resistance and performative resistance Consent in most criminal matters is built on objective reality. That if someone says "stop" or physically resists, it means no. We are learning its more than that socially but in the courts its murky. Lakini sasa, CNC introduces a subjective reality. If a scene goes wrong, or a safe word is "missed," the aggressor can literally weaponize the Morgan defense So Ty, what is your point? Well, I'm just saying, when you contractually agree to roleplay trauma and override standard boundaries, you strip away the exact objective evidence (struggling, crying, saying no) that the law relies on to prove a crime took place. The law is still playing catch up to know the difference