The Pyramid of Meta-Consent: How the Fundamentals of FRIES are Always Relevant

When I teach consent, I always teach FRIES: Freely given revocable informed enthusiastic specific consent. When I write and enforce rules for a kink space, I enforce FRIES. I also believe in RACK: Risk aware consensual kink. If you are fully informed of the risks, have fully considered the risks, and consented to them, then it's not my business what you do.

BDSM Fundamentals for HypnoKinksters

An overview of consent, negotiations, and aftercare for people who have only really done hypnosis.

Mutt's HypnosisMutt the Dog

Frequently, kinky people express that FRIES is not very sexy feeling. Their fantasies about power exchange involve being overpowered. They want their will to be overridden, not to freely give consent. They want to be pushed past a point of no return. They don't want to know what's going to happen. They want free use. They want to tell the top "do anything you want with me, I have no limits." They want to negotiate up mid-scene. They want total power exchange. They want surprises. They want rape fantasies. They want edgeplay. 

The truth is that more advanced kinksters consensually do all of the popular edgy non-consent fantasies plenty often. Consensual non-consent (CNC), sandbox negotiations, negotiated surprises, free use, and total power exchange are all achievable. However, newbies or even more intermediate players often misunderstand consensual non-consent as being "when we decide not to do consent or negotiations because we don't want to." This is bad consent practice. The risk of traumatic consent injury is not mitigated at all by claiming you don't care or won't get hurt. Without FRIES, there is no way in this situation to actually know what your play partner was truly consenting to—or how far that consent extended.

There is a misunderstanding that as long as someone wants something, it's consensual. This is false. Consent is an act of communication, not an emotional state of desire. Having an erection or getting wet are not signs of consent. In pursuit of sexy fantasies of non-consent, the fundamentals of consent are too often neglected, resulting in traumatic consent injuries. All consensual non-consent is built on a foundation of fundamental consent. Without the fundamentals, it's not CNC, it's just assault.

At the end of the day, FRIES is the foundation of all consent, even non-FRIES consent models. But how can that be? If we are not playing with the FRIES consent model, how is that also FRIES?

At the beginning, with any new play partner, you always start with FRIES as the definition of consent. You cannot skip it, or you're just not getting consent. You can't do consensual non-consent without obtaining consent for it and to obtain consent for consensual non-consent you have to get FRIES consent. Take a shot every time I say consent. This is confusing. Let's get visual.

Imagine you are building a pyramid. At the foundation you have the largest block, and on top of that you have fewer blocks, and on top of that fewer blocks, and so forth. FRIES is our foundational building block. All negotiations default to FRIES until negotiated otherwise. To build a model of consent with our play partner that is not freely given, not revocable, not informed, not enthusiastic, or not specific—you must negotiate that model from a place that is FRIES.

This is what I am calling the pyramid of meta-consent. You renegotiated what model of consent you and your play partner have agreed to use together. You consent to change consent. This is meta-consent. However, this meta-consent is still a type of consent and at the foundation, consent is FRIES. 

When you negotiate CNC, your consent must be freely given and not coerced. You must be able to revoke your consent to CNC. You must be informed of what you are consenting to and what risks it entails. You must be enthusiastic about CNC. And your CNC must be specific (for instance, consent to force you to your knees even if you say no is not consent to steal your credit card.) Meta-consent is built on FRIES, and therefore is revocable. You can pull away the foundation of your mutually constructed consent model, and end it, at any time, by saying "I no longer consent to being unable to stop a scene."

In this diagram, we see that as we re-negotiate our consent model, because that negotiation is built on FRIES, a "ghost" of FRIES is still present in the new model. My ordering here is arbitrary, and I am not claiming you have to or should negotiate away all of these letter in this exact order or that any of these are more extreme than any others. 

Normally, negotiating up mid-scene is not freely given consent, because you are not on a level playing field. How can you say no to someone who has you tied up and is wielding a toy that causes you pain? But if you freely consent to negotiating up mid-scene from a level playing field initially, then that "F" carries over to your scene. It is freely-given consent, because it is built on freely-given consent.

In a sense, when you negotiate for CNC or any advanced consent model, you are saying "I, of my own free will, uncoerced, able to back out, fully informed of the risks, enthusiastically and specifically consent to being surprised by new scene elements I did not specifically consent to." Within that statement, one consents to taking away the S, from a foundational position of FRIES. 

Now, all negotiating of advanced meta-consent must be RACK. You must seriously consider the risks of taking away a letter from FRIES. With each letter you negotiate away, you are adding substantially more risk to your scene. You cannot consent to CNC if you are not informed of the risks of CNC. Knowing your risk model is a crucial component of any edgeplay.

The risk of consent injury is a risk of inflicting serious mental trauma. Your brain is just an organ of your body and you are not a 100% rational creature that can will yourself to feel how you want to about anything, even with hypnosis. Often, sexual assault will leave you experiencing PTSD symptoms even if you don't want to, even if you want to forgive your play partner, even if you said it was OK with you after it happened. A consensual rapeplay scene has a risk of leaving you with instinctive physical reactions to your partner the same as if they had actually sexually assaulted you. Tread with caution.

I will discuss below what it looks like when we negotiate-away certain parts of FRIES. I will cover some associated risks, and some possible mitigation strategies. The lists of risks are not comprehensive. None of these strategies completely eliminate the risks. Messing with your consent model is edgeplay.

A full guide to CNC or total power exchange (TPE) is outside the scope of this article. If you wish to engage in CNC or TPE, you should attend a class specifically about negotiating and building CNC scenes safely within the specific kinks you wish to practice. This article is not a comprehensive guide to advanced consent models. I am only covering how those advanced models relate to the basics of consent, to help people better understand how advanced consent models are built on top of the fundamentals of consent. I believe you should get really good at the fundamentals of consent before you negotiate a more advanced or riskier consent model.

Re-negotiating "Freely Given"

The F in FRIES is for "freely given." This means you are not being coerced. You are sober of mind. You are negotiating from a place of being equals. 

When you negotiate up mid-scene, you are taking away the F. When you negotiate scenes from within a power dynamic relationship, you are taking away the F. When you do a scene where you actually force your partner to say "I consent" against their will as part of the scene, you are very much taking away the F.

This also relates to things like somnophilia kink or asking for consent of someone in a hypnotic trance.

Some risks of taking away the F

• You find yourself saying you consent to something that you would not have consented to and regret experiencing or have a traumatic reaction to.
• You find yourself deep into a power dynamic relationship, having consented to escalations of the dynamic you had not seriously considered or would not have consented to at the beginning of the relationship. Over time your sense of agency in the relationship is eroded and the relationship becomes indistinguishable from an abusive relationship in experience and cognitive effect.
• You lose the ability to trust your partner is truly consenting to the things you ask of them. You become constantly afraid that you are actually hurting them or making them do things they don't really want.
• You come to mistakenly believe you had obtained real consent for something that you actually had coerced consent for, and inflict a consent injury on your play partner with long lasting traumatic consequences.
• You become insecure in your relationship, wondering if your partner only says they love you because they have been coerced or are brainwashed.
• You lose yourself in the fantasy, and believe your partner does not love you, and only values you for your service to them.

A few ways to partially mitigate these risks

• Place clear boundaries around how negotiating up is to function. For instance, the scene pauses for two minutes prior, or only certain kinds of things can be negotiated up.
• Take breaks from your power dynamic and never escalate the dynamic itself from within the dynamic, even if individual scenes are negotiated within the dynamic.
• Come up with clear systems of communication that help distinguish real consent from fantasy coerced consent.
• Ensure your relationship has a foundation other than kink which can reaffirm your love and affection.

Re-negotiating "Revocable"

The R in FRIES stands for "revocable." Just because you gave consent to start doesn't mean you are obligated to finish. You can always say "stop" and end the scene.

When you take away "no" or "stop" or do any scene about being "forced" you are taking away the R. Most common CNC scenes, like rapeplay, are about taking away the R. 

Some risks of taking away the R

• You are impeded from communicating a serious medical emergency that requires halting the scene and suffer medical consequences as a result.
• You experience PTSD, because your brain-body system doesn't necessarily care that you had agreed to have your pleading to stop ignored.
• You start to feel you cannot say no to your play partner in-general because it doesn't matter.
• You mistake a genuine pleading from your submissive to stop the scene for a faux-resistance and push them too far.
• You are so panicked by the scene you go non-verbal or forget your safe word and cannot communicate a need to end the scene.

Some ways to mitigate the risks of taking away the R

• Have an alternate safeword for "stop"/"no" that can never change or be ignored.
• Having a time-bound period when consent is non-revocable, and then after that period of time consent automatically ends. For instance, this scene will last no longer than an hour.
• Extremely good aftercare.
• Saying no to your play partner a lot outside of scenes, for the sake of practice.
• Practicing saying your safeword.
• Establishing non-verbal safe words and multiple modalities of safewords. Including automatic safewords like "if you drop this ball" which could indicate a medical issue.
• Anticipating potential medical issues and taking targeted measures to mitigate those risks, or engaging only in play with fewer risks of medical complications.
• Checking in regularly mid-scene for "green" even if your submissive doesn't initiate using a safeword.

Re-Negotiating "Informed"

Informed consent means you are fully aware of what you are consenting to and all the risks and consequences of an activity. You can't just ask someone "do you consent?" with no other details. A rope rigger who has not taught a new bunny about nerve damage has not obtained informed consent. You cannot consent to breathplay if nobody has told you that there's no such thing as a safe way to choke someone, and breathplay causes more deaths than any other kink.

Because of the need for informed consent, you end up obligated to discuss every kink you might possibly want to do, to ensure your play partner is informed and aware of the risks. Usually this sounds like asking "do you have prior experience with rope?"

One way to "take away the I" is to create a "manual" or even a contract which states every possible kink that you could do together. The submissive is aware of the risks for these twenty kinks, and it has been passively discussed on paper, so now there is no need to discuss each kink individually and it creates room for surprises.

But what if you're a fan of Fifty Shades of Grey and like the idea of being introduced to new kinks by your dominant by surprise during a scene? How would you accomplish this fantasy? 

One method would be to collaborate on establishing a very detailed risk profile with firm limits on what risks the submissive is willing to accept. For instance, the submissive is a computer programmer and cannot engage in any kinks which could negatively impact their ability to type quickly. The dominant, who is very experienced and knowledgeable, now knows not to introduce any rope ties near nerves that affect the hands.

It's not very common to take away the I outside of a total power exchange dynamic, or other highly negotiated ongoing power dynamic. The scope of those dynamics is too big to cover in this article.

Some risks of Taking Away the I

• The dominant is an imperfect person and might be unaware of a risk associated with a kink that they introduce to the submissive, which the submissive would not have consented to accepting if they had played an active role in learning about the risks associated with a kink.
• There may be risks that the submissive would not have been willing to accept, but had not considered during the construction of their risk profile. If someone had prompted them to consider this particular risk, they would have realized they aren't comfortable with it.
• Both parties may have not been aware of or considered the impacts of a particular risk. For instance, someone might consent to accept the risk of receiving a burn scar from fire play, but had not realized burns can also lead to nerve damage, which they would not have found acceptable.
• Kinks might be introduced which the submissive had never known existed and would have put on their hard limits list if they knew it were possible.
• The submissive might be willing to accept some risks that the dominant actually is not willing to inflict on another person, and the dominant did not consider this.

Some ways to mitigate these risks

• Doing a metric fuck ton of research before engaging in a kink, even more than you might usually
• Regularly reviewing and updating your risk profile.
• The submissive regularly attends a wide array of classes on lots of different kinks, and becomes highly educated in a wide array of kinks that could be out there, and their associated risks. The submissive updates their risk profile and limits list accordingly.
• The submissive and dominant seek additional education in anatomy.
• The dominant also creates a risk profile and limits list for themself.

Re-Negotiating "Enthusiastic"

The E in FRIES is for "enthusiastic." Generally, this means "yes" means "yes," but not "maybe" or "sure, I guess." Passively going along with something because it's easier than saying no is not the same as consenting to it. 

This part of FRIES is often the most challenging to those raised under patriarchal heterosexual norms where sex is something you "obtain" when you have the "opportunity." When you think less about if your partner wants it and more about if you can get them to agree to it, then you start to ask "what do you mean it can still be non-consensual even if they agreed to do it? Didn't you just tell me consent is an act of communication and not a state of wanting?" We are not mind readers and cannot know what someone desires except for what they communicate to us. We do still have to care about their desires and emotional well being. A hesitant maybe is not communicating consent, it's communicating uncertainty or discomfort.

People who are experienced with consent and care deeply about the desires of their partner do not tend to struggle much with enthusiasm. In most negotiations, it is as simple as "so, do you want to want to do this?" "Yes! Absolutely. :)"

When we take away the E, what does that look like? Most often this comes up when two people negotiate a "free use" dynamic. The dominant can use the submissive sexually even when the submissive was busy doing other things, wants to do something else in the moment, or isn't really feeling that up to sex right now. In hypnosis, sometimes this entails the use of arousal triggers, to push someone into being in the mood when they previously weren't. 

Taking away the E also can mean a dynamic where someone consents to being subjected to kinks that they don't actually like or get much out of, entirely as a service to please their partner. For instance, someone who does not have a tickling kink consenting to being tickled by their partner. If asked "do you want to be tickled" the partner might say "not particularly" but the question "are you willing to be tickled, for me" would get a different answer.

Risks of taking away the E

• The submissive is subjected to experiences they don't particularly enjoy more often than they get to do the kinks they actually actively want, and becomes displeased with the relationship.
• The submissive is forced into kink or play while they were doing something actually very important and time sensitive that they really could not afford to have interrupted.
• The dominant gets habituated to not caring very much about the submissive's enthusiasm, enjoyment, or consent and ends up crossing a line somewhere that they previously would have been more attentive to.
• The submissive resents being pushed into something they did not want, even though they technically did consent to being pushed into doing things they weren't enthusiastic about. This damages the relationship.
• The submissive experiences acute or traumatic stress from being pushed into sex even though they technically agreed to the experience.
• The dominant's consent social skills atrophy from lack of use, and they become worse at identifying enthusiastic consent with other play partners.
• The dominant comes to feel entitled to their subject's time and resents when the subject safewords.
• The submissive's experienced sense of agency in the relationship is eroded and they feel unable to say no to their partner in general, even for non-kink things.
• The submissive comes to feel on edge around their partner or at home, unable to relax or settle into any activities, because they feel like they'll just get interrupted immediately anyway. This damages their mental health or relationship.
• The dominant misinterprets a true no for a soft meh and pushes through, enacting a consent injury upon their partner.

Some ways to mitigate the risks of taking away the E

• Discussing explicitly what the subject needs from the dynamic to feel satisfied and being attentive to those needs.
• Outlining clearly when "free use" is allowed and when it is not. For instance, not during work hours, not in a certain room, not while the submissive is on a phone call, or only on certain days of the week.
• Creating a passive signal indicating when the submissive is or is not okay with free use. Such as not while wearing a certain article of clothing (like wearing a red hat), or only when dressed a certain way (like wearing a collar).
• Taking regular breaks from the dynamic.
• Restricting "free use" to only certain things, such a sex, but still adhering to being equals when making other decisions, like where to eat for dinner.
• Checking in regularly about how both partners are enjoying the dynamic, during and after scenes.
• Establishing a firm safeword that cannot be changed or ignored.
• Establishing that no still means no, even if "meh" means yes.
• Practicing agency in the relationship regularly, like saying no sometimes for the sake of it.
• Very clear meta communication around what a hard no looks like.

Re-Negotiating "Specific"

The S in FRIES stands for "Specific." Consent to play is not consent to any possible thing someone might want to do in the scene. Consent to a blowjob is not consent to anal sex. Consent to hypnosis is not consent to any possible suggestions or brainwashing. You have to actually negotiate what specifically will happen in your scene, and when. When you get consent for touch, is it just for this scene? For how long? Where? How? 

In kink, the S is often a much bigger part of our consent practices than for vanilla people. It's also often the first to go when people negotiate advanced consent models, so much so that we often don't even think of it as CNC or advanced consent when we re-negotiate the S. Of all the letters, it probably carries the fewest risks that are the easiest to mitigate. Taking away the S is usually how we achieve "surprises."

Re-negotiating the S often sounds like

• Standing consent: I am always okay with you touching me. You don't need to ask every specific time.
• General consent: I am okay with you touching me anywhere on my body however you want. You don't need to ask about each specific body part or the specific way you want to touch.
• Sandbox consent: Here are my limits and boundaries for this scene. Anything within the confines of these boundaries, I consent to.
• Opt-out consent: I am okay with you just doing things without asking first, and I promise I will confidently speak up and tell you to stop if I don't like it.
• Obfuscated consent: I am consenting to any one of these five things to be done to me by surprise at some point within the next three months and I don't know which one will happen or when.

Some risks of taking away the S

• Something is introduced that someone failed to consider or hadn't conceived of when setting their limits and strongly would have objected to if it had been discussed specifically.
• Something is introduced that is outside of someone's risk profile and they would have brought that up if it had been discussed specifically.
• Someone has an acute or traumatic stress reaction to something introduced even though technically they did consent to the surprise.
• Someone fails to speak up to opt out even though they said they totally would, resulting in consequences for mental health or the relationship.
• Feelings change between negotiations and something actually happening, and what someone consented to in the past is now something they do not want.

Some ways to mitigate the risks of taking away the S

• Really good negotiations and communication.
• Building a strong rapport and understanding of what you each generally enjoy and dislike, and why.
• Setting tighter boundaries around your sandbox with fewer things permitted.
• Debriefing after scenes and asking which parts each partner liked and didn't like, to do better in the future.
• Practicing using your safewords and speaking up. Good agency.
• Safety planning and good aftercare.
• Building a risk profile and understanding your limits.
• Regular check-ins during and after the scene to make sure everything is still green, even if a safeword wasn't used.
• Discussing what emotional reactions or signs (like panic) should trigger a check in or ending the scene even if a safeword isn't used.

Conclusion

Freely given revocable informed enthusiastic specific consent is the foundation of all consent. Consent and negotiation models which appear to not conform to the strictest models of consent, when done right, still conform to FRIES because they are negotiated from a place of FRIES. The fundamentals of consent and negotiations are relevant to everyone regardless of their personal risk profile or desires.

You can achieve your fantasies of non-consent in a fully consensual way through meta-negotiations of a consent model between you and your partner that fits within your risk profile and approaches the emotional experience you desire.

All constructed consent models that appear to not be FRIES can be revoked at any time, reverting the dynamic back to a basic default FRIES consent model.

When you begin your negotiations as equals, informed of risks, enthusiastically, you can change specific ways you engage in play and negotiations together to fit your desires. This is not discarding traditional consent, but building on top of it.

I hope my metaphor of the meta-consensual pyramid helps you with exploring models of consent that work comfortably for you and your partners, and negotiating those models in a healthy way.