Risks of BDSM?
Patti Beadles
and RACK, and quickly came to the conclusion that the top (or
in his case the dominant) wasn't taking any risks when they engaged
in BDSM. This seemed like total bullshit to me, so I jumped into
a lively but friendly debate with him.
And then I got to thinking, and started categorizing the risks in
my mind. Here's what I came up with. The original blog entry is
at http://alt.com/blog/43/post_110324.html :
--------------------------------------------
Per a conversation with sherlock1951, I've been doing a lot of
thinking about the risks of BDSM in all its myriad varieties.
Thus far, I've managed to come up with four categories:
Physical: Physical harm in whatever form it might take. Clearly this
is usually a higher risk for the bottom than the top, but all
physical activity carries with it some risk of injury.
Legal: What happens when the police hear screams and knock on your
door? Plenty of tops have been hauled off and prosecuted even though
the bottoms in question insisted that the activity was purely
consensual. (See the Spanner case in England for a prime example.)
I'm sure there are cases where a bottom could get in legal hot
water, but this seems like primarily a top's risk.
Emotional: Any time two people have a relationship, there's risk of
emotional harm. I'm pretty sure that this one breaks down pretty
evenly between top and bottom, although although in any given
relationship it may not be equally balanced.
Social: Will your parents disown you if they find out you're a
slave? Will you lose your job if people find out you're kinky? Will
you lose custody of your children? Since WIITWD is largely socially
unacceptable, this can be a real risk, though it varies widely from
person to person. Though there are wide disparities here, I think
that it breaks down pretty evenly between top and bottom.
What did I miss?
--------------------------------------------
I have this gnawing feeling that I'm overlooking something really
obvious.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | Check out the Dating Horrors blog:
http://www.pattib.org/ |
Check out www.tribe.net ! | http://www.datinghorrors.com/
Kevin Craig
<pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
> What did I miss?
I'd add Professional -- will you lose your job if your employer learns
of your activities, or if you're too "out" in your off-duty time?
Kevin
Patti Beadles
Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I'd add Professional -- will you lose your job if your employer learns
>of your activities, or if you're too "out" in your off-duty time?
Yeah. I lumped that one in with social, but maybe it deserves
its own category.
Golden California Girls
Well if something goes wrong in a scene, there is the Financial risk of having
to pay all the medical bills, loss of income, etc. (Even if the players are
fine with each other the insurance companies may duke it out.)
In your legal item, false accusations of intentional captivity and harm.
I'm sure I'm missing many too.
tacit
pat...@green.rahul.net (Patti Beadles) wrote:
> What did I miss?
Psychological, which I would classify as distinct from emotional.
Trauma, unexpected negative response, that sort of thing. Particularly
with humiliation play, rape play, or other forms of BDSM designed to
trigger a particularly powerful response. (One person of my acquaintance
ended up with something like post traumatic stress disorder after a
rape-play scenario went bad.)
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
Janet Hardy
<pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
> On the alt.com blogs, one of the author started discussing SSC
> and RACK, and quickly came to the conclusion that the top (or
> in his case the dominant) wasn't taking any risks when they engaged
> in BDSM. This seemed like total bullshit to me, so I jumped into
> a lively but friendly debate with him.
Good for you -- that POV is incredibly shortsighted and unimaginative, IMO.
A fifth category of risk might be "moral", aka "being a bad person." If I'm
happily caning along, and my victim withdraws consent but I keep going, I've
stepped over an ethical line -- I've instantaneously gone from being a lover
to an abuser. If you believe in divine retribution, that's a big risk, and
even if you don't, it still is -- some little toggle clicks over once one
starts thinking of oneself as "someone whose pleasure is more important than
their ethics."
I also think your "emotional" category needs expansion (I see this as by far
the biggest risk of BDSM, BTW). Playing in the shadow is risky stuff -- we
bring out those dark personae because we hope to find acceptance and love
for them, but when we don't -- when we've made a mistake and the bottom
really wasn't enjoying it on any level, or when the bottom isn't taking
personal responsibility and affects to have hated something they were
actually enjoying -- we can experience incredibly destructive aftereffects.
(If the guy who wrote the post you objected to is a top, and has never
experienced this or suspected it might happen, he's certainly not a top I'd
want to play with.)
Janet
--
Gilbert's Mother: Maude...
Maude Gilbert: Yes, Mama?
Gilbert's Mother: Never bear a humorous baby.
Maude Gilbert: I shall endeavor not to, Mama.
-- "Topsy-Turvy"
Patti Beadles
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>(If the guy who wrote the post you objected to is a top, and has never
>experienced this or suspected it might happen, he's certainly not a top I'd
>want to play with.)
He's a dominant of the 24/7 TPE bent. The conversation starated
with him saying that he didn't think that the concept of RACK
applied in 24/7 relationships, since the dominant would have to
make sure the submissive understood the risks of every single
order that was issued.
In the ensuing discussion, he seemed to think that submissives bore
100% of the risk of BDSM. I think I've pretty thoroughly convinced
him *that* isn't the case.
Moral is a good one, and it's not one that I really think about
much.
Violet Tigress
pat...@green.rahul.net (Patti Beadles) wrote:
> In the ensuing discussion, he seemed to think that submissives bore
> 100% of the risk of BDSM. I think I've pretty thoroughly convinced
> him *that* isn't the case.
********
That is a pretty silly notion. Doms bear all sorts of risk. Just not the
same risks as the sub. UsualltyI'm glad that you set him straight. As a
sub who doesn't aspire ro ever be 24/7, I think that in terms of the
physical risk subs may bear more than their doms.Not all, by any stretch
of the imagination though... & that''s just the physical risks.
Bladerunner
Perhaps this goes with "Emotional" too.
I once inquired on a BDSM list how one might go about a snuff scene. I
wasn't sure I was ready to top it because of how I might feel about
myself afterwards, and I was looking for ways to mitigate the fall-out.
I was accused by more than one person of being dangerous, crazy,
insane, and homicidal. I've also had a couple of scenes where the
bottom decided either in-scene or later (in at least one case, weeks
later) that they didn't like what they'd asked for after all and
accused me of being a dangerous person. Now, I'm not disagreeing with
these folks completely. Some of what I do *is* dangerous, especially
for some values of dangerous. And one could argue I'm crazy, insane,
whatever. Just not likely for the reasons *they* think so. *g*
Seriously, though, it doesn't take a whole lot for others in the
community to view you as a not-safe player. Either through
ignorance/accidents on your own to bottoms or subs who decide
(well-intended to the community or not) to trash your reputation.
I'd also second the post about psychological/emotional stuff. Along
with my concerns of how I'd react to topping a snuff scene mentioned
above, I've written here in SSBB about other psychological fall-out
from things I saw myself as doing wrong as a top and sometime-dom.
I'd probably note that the risks everyone is mentioning don't have to
be a direct result of anything the bottom/sub is doing either. I'd
probably also make sure to note that the physical risks aren't
necessarily those one might incur from a bottom. I've hurt myself
plenty in trying to top. :)
Bladerunner
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Portland, OR
"If you beat the shit out of a man, he will learn all about you."
--Nigel Kent, as quoted in Guy Baldwin's "Ties That Bind"
Lusus Naturae
>What did I miss?
You forgot theological/teleological risk. As we've been told
many times, we're all going to Hell.
--
Lusus Naturae
David Weinshenker
I know what SSC is, but what does RACK stand for?
-dave w
Cindy
Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
dangerous play in which we indulge.
Steve Pope
><pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>> What did I miss?
That's a pretty darn good breakdown.
>I'd add Professional -- will you lose your job if your employer learns
>of your activities, or if you're too "out" in your off-duty time?
As I read Patti's breakdown, that falls under "social" risk --
one's professional standing being dependent on one's social
standing.
Steve
Steve Pope
>Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
>of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
>it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
>dangerous play in which we indulge.
I'll go along with it being a concept I ascribe to more than
SSC, for the reasons stated, but I'm not sure it'll catch
on as an acronym.
Steve
Ruth Lawrence
"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:e0t0p3$8uk$2...@blue.rahul.net...
I prefer 'responsible' to 'sane' (SRC), but am a large fraction of a
Wiseman.
RACK is used by some individuals down here who I regard as feckless,
ignorant and self-serving, who I feel have a bad attitude to
subs/bottoms/slaves, so for me it's tainted.
That said, it seems to me that SRC is wise with strangers and acquaintances,
RACK fine in a relationship or with a well-understood play partner.
Also, I think it's relevant that I come for a country where (still) we have
socialised medicine: someone ending up in hospital is paid for by us all.
Ruth
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
--
Offering chains and freedom for nice ladies in Southern California.
http://www.geocities.com/prison_lover/index.html
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have
no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the
current President.
Janet Hardy
Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>>
>>> It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
>>> of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
>>> it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
>>> dangerous play in which we indulge.
>>
>> I'll go along with it being a concept I ascribe to more than
>> SSC, for the reasons stated, but I'm not sure it'll catch
>> on as an acronym.
>
> You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
> on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
> scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
> with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
They're the same as far as I'm concerned. "Risk-aware"? You can't possibly
be aware of all the risks in a scene. "Consensual"? Hardly a binary term --
there are all kinds of gradations of consent, from hell-yes-when? to
I'm-hating-everything-about-this-but-I'm-going-to-keep-going and beyond.
In other words, they're *slogans* -- like "GE Brings Good Things To Life" or
"Have It Your Way." They're not intended as guidelines or sorting
mechanisms; they're marketing slogans, and that's it. Meaningful guidelines
can rarely be condensed into three or four words -- hell, even the Golden
Rule took eleven.
SilverOz
Janet Hardy <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> In other words, they're *slogans* -- like "GE Brings Good Things To Life" or
> "Have It Your Way." They're not intended as guidelines or sorting
> mechanisms; they're marketing slogans, and that's it. Meaningful guidelines
> can rarely be condensed into three or four words -- hell, even the Golden
> Rule took eleven.
Well no.. it took two. "Golden Rule". The eleven are the subheading
description. how to apply it and when, that's a bunch of parables and
quite a few stories and discussions.
Same same SSC and RACK. They are titles/nicknames, like "Golden Rule"
is. What they mean, how to use them in day to day life takes lots of
discussion and training.
Kant's Categorical Imperative is a few sentences, but it took a book
and a couple of hundred years of impassioned discussion to work out
what and why.
Yes, you can't describe complex behaviour in a few words so that you
can run your life by them. But that doesn't make the shorthand
useless, nor does it make them a marketing slogan. They can be of
course, everything gets misused. I think of them more as a mnemonic.
SilverOz
Canis Ridiculous
(UTC)
<e0qb6k$36o$1...@blue.rahul.net>
>Will your parents disown you if they find out you're a
>slave?
Or a Master: "I didn't raise my son/daughter to treat women like
this/be so forward with men!"
If you're gay that probably trumps kinky in terms of a negative
reaction from the parents.
I'm less uncomfortable with the idea of my parents finding out what it
is that I do than I think I would be if I were a sub, because my
parents tend to assume that any relationship I'm in has a power
imbalance favoring my partner. At least if they learn I'm a dom they
won't fear for my autonomy. Assuming, of course, that they're not
kinky themselves.
--
Canis perro...@yahoo.com
Ridiculous
"Look at the habtual masturbator ... feel his damp and chilling hand!"
--Henry Guernsey
Canis Ridiculous
(UTC)
<e0sarb$itd$1...@blue.rahul.net>
>he didn't think that the concept of RACK
>applied in 24/7 relationships, since the dominant would have to
>make sure the submissive understood the risks of every single
>order that was issued.
How ... bizarrely literal. When agreeing to/renewing the arrangement,
certainly, but every time? That defeats the purpose of negotiation.
Er, this dude does negotiate, right?
Canis Ridiculous
18:29:56 +1000
<44322e7e$0$20116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
>RACK is used by some individuals down here who I regard as feckless,
>ignorant and self-serving, who I feel have a bad attitude to
>subs/bottoms/slaves, so for me it's tainted.
But the problem is the people, not the term, right?
I prefer RACK not because people have different threshholds of "safe"
and "sane" -- obviously it's subjective, it's a guideline, not a law
of physics -- but because the itty bitty part of me that has some
libertarian tendencies doesn't like the idea of telling a grown person
to avoid even things zie zirself doesn't consider safe and sane.
Ruth Lawrence
"Janet Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:C0583867.5D03%ver...@earthlink.net...
> On 4/4/06 2:23 PM, in article XsBYf.748$Fl.610@fed1read09, "Chains and
> Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>>>
>>>> It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids
>>>> some
>>>> of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
>>>> it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
>>>> dangerous play in which we indulge.
>>>
>>> I'll go along with it being a concept I ascribe to more than
>>> SSC, for the reasons stated, but I'm not sure it'll catch
>>> on as an acronym.
>>
>> You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
>> on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
>> scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
>> with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
>
> They're the same as far as I'm concerned. "Risk-aware"? You can't possibly
> be aware of all the risks in a scene.
Of course not. One can be aware of bleeding obvious things, as in the rest
of existence.
"We can't know everything so shan't bother to try" strikes me as, well, a
Red Flag.
>"Consensual"? Hardly a binary term --
True, but one can be punctilious about it with casual play partners.
I'm not going to trust someone I sense is weaselling about consent, in the
scene or out of it.
> there are all kinds of gradations of consent, from hell-yes-when? to
> I'm-hating-everything-about-this-but-I'm-going-to-keep-going and beyond.
It takes two, though, and as I said I'm a significant fraction of a Wiseman.
I'm not going to go beyond a certain point in topping, and if that loses me
a play partner, them's de breaks.
I'm up rfont about it.
> In other words, they're *slogans* -- like "GE Brings Good Things To Life"
> or
> "Have It Your Way." They're not intended as guidelines or sorting
> mechanisms; they're marketing slogans, and that's it. Meaningful
> guidelines
> can rarely be condensed into three or four words -- hell, even the Golden
> Rule took eleven.
I think that they are goals, not slogans.
"I don't like these imperfect wooords/ickl rools so shall do what ever I
like" isn't a red flag, it's a warning klaxon, to me, and has served well.
Of course your culture, scene and values may very well vary.
Ruth, who sees no reason to trust some who doesn't strive for SRC or RACK at
either end.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> On 4/4/06 2:23 PM, in article XsBYf.748$Fl.610@fed1read09, "Chains and
> Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>>>> It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
>>>> of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
>>>> it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
>>>> dangerous play in which we indulge.
>>> I'll go along with it being a concept I ascribe to more than
>>> SSC, for the reasons stated, but I'm not sure it'll catch
>>> on as an acronym.
>> You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
>> on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
>> scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
>> with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
>
> They're the same as far as I'm concerned. "Risk-aware"? You can't possibly
> be aware of all the risks in a scene. "Consensual"? Hardly a binary term --
> there are all kinds of gradations of consent, from hell-yes-when? to
> I'm-hating-everything-about-this-but-I'm-going-to-keep-going and beyond.
I agree with your point about slogans further down, that's indeed what
they are. But are they really the same? Not in my mind. For starters,
the emphasis is different - and since it's a slogan, the emphasis and
spirit is all-important.
The second difference, in my mind, is that SSC basically implies that if
it's not safe, don't do it. That's a very good strategy with a stranger
or in a casual context.
RACK implies that you unsafe things are still acceptable as long as both
partners are aware of the risks involved (and work to minimize them,
although RACK does not say that) and still decide that the rewards
exceed the risks (that's where the consent part comes in). That's why I
said that it makes more sense in a relationship, where knowing each
other is one way of reducing the inherent risk.
So RACK allows many things that SSC doesn't. Whether that difference
makes RACK "better" or "worse" than SSC is a topic for another debate.
At least that's how I look at the difference.
> In other words, they're *slogans* -- like "GE Brings Good Things To Life" or
> "Have It Your Way." They're not intended as guidelines or sorting
> mechanisms; they're marketing slogans, and that's it. Meaningful guidelines
> can rarely be condensed into three or four words -- hell, even the Golden
> Rule took eleven.
>
> Janet
--
Offering chains and freedom for nice ladies in Southern California.
Nena and Al
kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
>on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
>scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
>with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
The only difference I see between the two is that an unfortunate
number of folks use SSC as a stick to beat up other kinky people.
Both acronyms are really saying the same thing - that my partner(s)
and I know what we're doing and we're comfortable with the way we're
doing it. Personally, I don't use either of them. Their only real
usefulness is in explaining kink to folks who don't understand, and
that's not something I do much of.
I don't understand how using one term or the other would make any
difference in a relationship. What you call it doesn't change the way
you do things, does it?
Nena
Don SideB
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>news:e0t0p3$8uk$2...@blue.rahul.net...
>> Cindy <cu.c...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>>
>>>It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
>>>of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
>>>it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
>>>dangerous play in which we indulge.
>>
>> I'll go along with it being a concept I ascribe to more than
>> SSC, for the reasons stated, but I'm not sure it'll catch
>> on as an acronym.
>
>I prefer 'responsible' to 'sane' (SRC), but am a large fraction of a
>Wiseman.
>
>RACK is used by some individuals down here who I regard as feckless,
>ignorant and self-serving, who I feel have a bad attitude to
>subs/bottoms/slaves, so for me it's tainted.
I agree your SRC is a better term than SSC, but as far as RACK is
concerned, it is nothing more than an abandonment of all
responsibility by the Top/Dom, placing all the risk on the Bottom/Sub.
The vanilla equivalent would be, "If you get her drunk enough that she
cannot object, it isn't rape."
don
DonSideB
Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.
Ruth Lawrence
"Nena and Al" <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote in message
news:r0a732lfgaauu9oop...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:23:14 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>You'd be surprised. RACK has been around for a couple years, and caught
>>on quite nicely. SSC is still better known because for people new to the
>>scene, I think it's easier to grasp and more comforting. I'm (mostly)
>>with Ruth on this: RACK really makes most sense in a relationship.
>
> The only difference I see between the two is that an unfortunate
> number of folks use SSC as a stick to beat up other kinky people.
Oh, I don't see this here (although I grant it may have
occured), I see and hear much moaning about how the
SSC concept Oppresses (the complaining) kinky people,
indeed sometimes those with No Idea Whatsoever.
(In fact, RACK is more 'oppressive' as it implies some
intelligent application to reach 'aware', in my view).
But I don't live where you do, and our scenes will vary.
> Both acronyms are really saying the same thing - that my partner(s)
> and I know what we're doing and we're comfortable with the way we're
> doing it.
I see SRC as useful with non-partners.
>Personally, I don't use either of them. Their only real
> usefulness is in explaining kink to folks who don't understand, and
> that's not something I do much of.
I would use neither to attempt to explain kink to nillas down here.
:::imagines train wreck:::
> I don't understand how using one term or the other would make any
> difference in a relationship. What you call it doesn't change the way
> you do things, does it?
Actually, it can be very important, in my view.
Things that aren't Named can pass under the radar,
for instance.
But then I'm someone who both analyses things to death
and doesn't assume either good will or common sense.
Ruth
Janet Hardy
"Ruth Lawrence" <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Ruth, who sees no reason to trust some who doesn't strive for SRC or RACK at
> either end.
Please don't misunderstand me. My negotiations are a very large part of a
Wiseman, since I learned them at the, um, knee of the originator. Yeah, his
knee, that was it.
Slogans can definitely be goals -- corporate slogans often appear in
training materials so that the employees can help present the kind of
service that the slogan has promised. What they aren't is detailed, or
specific, or a substitute for actual thought and discussion.
Kevin Craig
<pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
> In article <030420060230041497%kbc...@pobox.com>,
> Kevin Craig <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd add Professional -- will you lose your job if your employer learns
> >of your activities, or if you're too "out" in your off-duty time?
>
> Yeah. I lumped that one in with social, but maybe it deserves
> its own category.
Doh! I see that now.
But yes, it's a separate risk for many people, who don't care if
friends and family know, but might be at risk if the boss found out.
Kevin
Kevin Craig
<dons...@aol.com> wrote:
> I agree your SRC is a better term than SSC, but as far as RACK is
> concerned, it is nothing more than an abandonment of all
> responsibility by the Top/Dom, placing all the risk on the Bottom/Sub.
I don't agree with that at all. I believe RACK implies that all parts
are aware of the risks, and that the kink is still consensual.
Kevin
Nena and Al
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> The only difference I see between the two is that an unfortunate
>> number of folks use SSC as a stick to beat up other kinky people.
>
>Oh, I don't see this here (although I grant it may have
>occured), I see and hear much moaning about how the
>SSC concept Oppresses (the complaining) kinky people,
>indeed sometimes those with No Idea Whatsoever.
It's not the concept that oppresses - it's kinky people who use a
warped version of the concept to oppress other kinky people. I don't
see it here much, either, but I do see it often in other online venues
and I've heard it some in meat life. This or that person or activity
"isn't SSC", as if there was some approved list of acts and attitudes
out there. Very YKINOK to my mind.
>I would use neither to attempt to explain kink to nillas down here.
Neither would I. I was thinking of folks who are new to kink or are
curious about it.
>> I don't understand how using one term or the other would make any
>> difference in a relationship. What you call it doesn't change the way
>> you do things, does it?
>
>Actually, it can be very important, in my view.
>
>Things that aren't Named can pass under the radar,
>for instance.
How do you mean?
>"I don't like these imperfect wooords/ickl rools so shall do what ever I
>like" isn't a red flag, it's a warning klaxon, to me, and has served well.
My red flag waves the other way. I am cautious of folks who appear to
be very invested in the lingo. It's been my exerience that they're
not very effective interpersonal communicators and have a difficult
time of it when reality doesn't square with theory. I guess that I
shy away from the rebels-without-a-clue, too. They're pretty much the
same way.
Folks were successfully dealing with risk assessment and consent and
negotiation for a long time before any of these acronyms were
invented. The acronyms are a communication tool, they aren't a
substitute for communication.
>Of course your culture, scene and values may very well vary.
>
>Ruth, who sees no reason to trust some who doesn't strive for SRC or RACK at
>either end.
Most people I know - everyone I know, actually - wants happy,
consensual playtime and relationships whether they use SSC, SRC, RACK,
or none of the above. Most don't "strive" or even think about it much
- it's natural for them to care for and about their partner(s) and to
communicate and negotiate. I think it's a mistake to confuse
rejection of the terms with rejection of the concept they represent.
I don't reject the terms, I just don't see them as useful for anything
other than (as Janet said) a slogan. They're like Keep It Simple
Stupid (KISS) - catchy and easy to remember snipets to which folks can
attach the actual concept in their heads.
I do reject the idea that it matters which acronym a person uses. Any
assumptions we make about folks based on the acronyms they use (or
don't use) are a reflection of what's inside us, not of what's going
on with them.
Nena
SilverOz
Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
>
> I do reject the idea that it matters which acronym a person uses. Any
> assumptions we make about folks based on the acronyms they use (or
> don't use) are a reflection of what's inside us, not of what's going
> on with them.
Well.. to some extent, they've got politicised.
They seem to have acquired connotations about the way people who use
them want to be seen.
Of course, those connotations aren't valuable because they depend a
lot on who you talk to - some people see anyone who uses SSC as trying
to control others, some see them as people who have been around for a
while and don't need this fancy new idea that isn't really new at all
but just a chance to feel like you are special.
I like to add another one into the mix, TCR, standing for Trust, Care,
and Respect.
IF you don't have TCR, then neither SSC or RACK are going to work. If
you do, then the others go without saying, they will come out of the
feelings you have for your partner and your desires for them.
I think it is good for people to hear the acronyms and the discussions
around them. Because without that, people can't really crystallise
their own ideas, not without a lot more work and introspection anyway.
Dorothy Sayers said that it wasn't possible to fully gain from an
experience until you could describe it in some way - words or pictures.
Until you could step back from it enough to try and convey what happened
and how if affected you, then you hadn't really got all there was from it.
I think you can't really understand your own relationship and way of
thinking until you have been able to describe your ethos, how you govern
your actions, what is important and why. The slogans and the discussions
around them help people to do that, and give them a reason to do it.
Most people will end up finding all the problems with the slogans that
others have found before them. This is a good thing, it's a sign that
simple answers aren't working, so they are finding their own complex
understandings. Without the slogans and the trying to define and work
with them, I don't know how many would get that far.
SilverOz
Ruth Lawrence
> On 4/4/06 8:11 PM, in article
> 44333572$0$7599$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au,
> "Ruth Lawrence" <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Ruth, who sees no reason to trust some who doesn't strive for SRC or RACK
>> at
>> either end.
>
> Please don't misunderstand me. My negotiations are a very large part of a
> Wiseman, since I learned them at the, um, knee of the originator. Yeah,
> his
> knee, that was it.
Aha.
Um.
That sounds, er, Interesting.
> Slogans can definitely be goals -- corporate slogans often appear in
> training materials so that the employees can help present the kind of
> service that the slogan has promised. What they aren't is detailed, or
> specific, or a substitute for actual thought and discussion.
Of course not!
Perhaps I've developed a Spanking Raspberry so-to-speak on the topic as
there are some breath-takingly idiotic tops down here, and as I am about to
begin real training myelf I've a list of behaviours not-to-emulate.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
Ruth Lawrence
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:33:33 +1000, "Ruth Lawrence"
> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> The only difference I see between the two is that an unfortunate
>>> number of folks use SSC as a stick to beat up other kinky people.
>>
>>Oh, I don't see this here (although I grant it may have
>>occured), I see and hear much moaning about how the
>>SSC concept Oppresses (the complaining) kinky people,
>>indeed sometimes those with No Idea Whatsoever.
>
> It's not the concept that oppresses - it's kinky people who use a
> warped version of the concept to oppress other kinky people. I don't
> see it here much, either, but I do see it often in other online venues
> and I've heard it some in meat life. This or that person or activity
> "isn't SSC", as if there was some approved list of acts and attitudes
> out there. Very YKINOK to my mind.
Yes.
But really, people might learn to debate, one could hope.
Then again, people are people everywhere.
>
>>I would use neither to attempt to explain kink to nillas down here.
>
> Neither would I. I was thinking of folks who are new to kink or are
> curious about it.
SRC is used here with new folks. Yes, each term is
debateable, but most of us are going to have a fair
idea as to what they mean.
>
>>> I don't understand how using one term or the other would make any
>>> difference in a relationship. What you call it doesn't change the way
>>> you do things, does it?
>>
>>Actually, it can be very important, in my view.
>>
>>Things that aren't Named can pass under the radar,
>>for instance.
>
> How do you mean?
If there isn't a word or phrase naming something, people cannot think about
it as well.
This is a philosophical view of mine, of course.
The people you descibe as being opressed above are likely being 'otherised',
an unwieldy and unpretty but very useful term, I think.
>>"I don't like these imperfect wooords/ickl rools so shall do what ever I
>>like" isn't a red flag, it's a warning klaxon, to me, and has served well.
>
> My red flag waves the other way. I am cautious of folks who appear to
> be very invested in the lingo.
There's a difference between over-identifying with jargon, and an acute
awareness of meaning, to my mind.
>It's been my exerience that they're
> not very effective interpersonal communicators and have a difficult
> time of it when reality doesn't square with theory.
Oh boy does my milege vary. the vest communicators I know are very into
making sure that the meanings of words they use are mutually understood.
> shy away from the rebels-without-a-clue, too. They're pretty much the
> same way.
I don't see them as the same.
I should mention that didacticism is abhorred in Oz.
>
> Folks were successfully dealing with risk assessment and consent and
> negotiation for a long time before any of these acronyms were
> invented. The acronyms are a communication tool, they aren't a
> substitute for communication.
I see them as part of communication.
>
>>Of course your culture, scene and values may very well vary.
>>
>>Ruth, who sees no reason to trust some who doesn't strive for SRC or RACK
>>at
>>either end.
>
> Most people I know - everyone I know, actually - wants happy,
> consensual playtime and relationships whether they use SSC, SRC, RACK,
> or none of the above.
Heck, I must be living somewhere else.
There's a stream of chudwahs everywhere, I htought.
>Most don't "strive" or even think about it much
> - it's natural for them to care for and about their partner(s) and to
> communicate and negotiate. I think it's a mistake to confuse
> rejection of the terms with rejection of the concept they represent.
I've a darker view of humaity, it seems. There are bad guys. there are not
fewer bad guys in the scene, it's too big. There are predators.
More than anything there are selfish gits in numbers too big to ignore.
>
> I don't reject the terms, I just don't see them as useful for anything
> other than (as Janet said) a slogan. They're like Keep It Simple
> Stupid (KISS) - catchy and easy to remember snipets to which folks can
> attach the actual concept in their heads.
:::sigh:::
I see them as useful in scene events.
>
> I do reject the idea that it matters which acronym a person uses. Any
> assumptions we make about folks based on the acronyms they use (or
> don't use) are a reflection of what's inside us, not of what's going
> on with them.
Not necesssarily.
Well, we live in different places. Those different acronyms denote stances
in scene politics here.
It's so with regard to other acronyms in other situations, other words,
other concepts.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
"SilverOz" <Silv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrne3cnl6....@localhost.localdomain...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:08:24 -0500
> Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
>>
>> I do reject the idea that it matters which acronym a person uses. Any
>> assumptions we make about folks based on the acronyms they use (or
>> don't use) are a reflection of what's inside us, not of what's going
>> on with them.
>
> Well.. to some extent, they've got politicised.
>
> They seem to have acquired connotations about the way people who use
> them want to be seen.
>
> Of course, those connotations aren't valuable because they depend a
> lot on who you talk to - some people see anyone who uses SSC as trying
> to control others, some see them as people who have been around for a
> while and don't need this fancy new idea that isn't really new at all
> but just a chance to feel like you are special.
>
> I like to add another one into the mix, TCR, standing for Trust, Care,
> and Respect.
>
> IF you don't have TCR, then neither SSC or RACK are going to work. If
> you do, then the others go without saying, they will come out of the
> feelings you have for your partner and your desires for them.
Yay!
Oops, don't mind me.
I've been guilty of pre-supposing TCR in my writings elsewhere.
There are sensisible forolks out there who would claim one cannot assume
TCR.
> I think it is good for people to hear the acronyms and the discussions
> around them. Because without that, people can't really crystallise
> their own ideas, not without a lot more work and introspection anyway.
this is what i was trying to say elsethread.
>
> Dorothy Sayers said that it wasn't possible to fully gain from an
> experience until you could describe it in some way - words or pictures.
> Until you could step back from it enough to try and convey what happened
> and how if affected you, then you hadn't really got all there was from it.
This is so, for me.
And then there are concepts that are really useful or sharp, such as
fungibility*.
"I'm disinclined to trust a dom/me/top who seems to regard
subs/bottoms/slaves as fungible, sie reminds me of a
politician", said Ruth.
*(that is, functionally identical, like a lego brick).
> I think you can't really understand your own relationship and way of
> thinking until you have been able to describe your ethos, how you govern
> your actions, what is important and why. The slogans and the discussions
> around them help people to do that, and give them a reason to do it.
That's mostly how I've heard them used, except during squabbles.
> Most people will end up finding all the problems with the slogans that
> others have found before them. This is a good thing, it's a sign that
> simple answers aren't working, so they are finding their own complex
> understandings. Without the slogans and the trying to define and work
> with them, I don't know how many would get that far.
They are starting points, then.
I'm okay with that.
Ruth, who was perfectly well aware from the outset that all the words in
those acronyms were squishy
user119
[snip]
> They're the same as far as I'm concerned. "Risk-aware"? You can't possibly
> be aware of all the risks in a scene. "Consensual"? Hardly a binary term --
> there are all kinds of gradations of consent, from hell-yes-when? to
> I'm-hating-everything-about-this-but-I'm-going-to-keep-going and beyond.
>
> In other words, they're *slogans* -- like "GE Brings Good Things To Life" or
> "Have It Your Way." They're not intended as guidelines or sorting
> mechanisms; they're marketing slogans, and that's it. Meaningful guidelines
> can rarely be condensed into three or four words -- hell, even the Golden
> Rule took eleven.
Thank you Janet for that look at the unvarnished truth.
(I keep waiting for the release of the
"New and improved version 4.5 BDSM")
--
Cui bonuo
remove the -N-COLD to reply
M. Shirley Chong
>>Most people I know - everyone I know, actually - wants happy,
>>consensual playtime and relationships whether they use SSC, SRC, RACK,
>>or none of the above.
<<<snip>>>
>>Most don't "strive" or even think about it much
>>- it's natural for them to care for and about their partner(s) and to
>>communicate and negotiate. I think it's a mistake to confuse
>>rejection of the terms with rejection of the concept they represent.
Ruth Lawrence wrote:
> I've a darker view of humaity, it seems. There are bad guys. there are not
> fewer bad guys in the scene, it's too big. There are predators.
>
> More than anything there are selfish gits in numbers too big to ignore.
Do these people self-identify as such? As in "hello, I'm a ruthless
predatory top who prefers to break hearts as many times a year as I
can..." Or "hi there, I'm selfish as all get out and regard others
merely as life support systems for my own fantasies..."
Or is it that most people say they want, even genuinely feel they
want, caring and loving relationships but have patterns of behaviour
that makes it less likely for them to actually attain the
relationship of their dreams?
I myself have never met or seen anyone who self-identified as a
predator or CHUDWA. I've met many people who had a pattern of
relationships that were destructive to themselves and their partners
but didn't know how to fix it, so kept on repeating the same
patterns of behaviour over and over.
I do have a stepson who has a boatload of diagnoses, including
psychopathy or narcissism (to be fair, also borderline personality
disorder, bipolar disorder, atypical schizophrenia and a few others
I don't recall right off hand). He's spent quite a bit of time in
jail, he's got several children on the ground and he appears to have
an unhealthy preference for 13-14 year old girls (which was not such
an outstandingly odd thing when he himself was 15 and 16 but now
that he's in his late twenties, it's troubling).
Does Stepson self-identify as mentally ill or as having a
personality disorder? Nope. He sincerely believes there is something
wrong with everyone else and seems to think that all he needs to do
is find the "right" person and all will be well.
If Stepson were kinky, I'm sure he would espouse SSC, SRC, RACK and
whatever other acronym denoted normal caring behaviour. But since
his frame of reference is so badly skewed, there's no way he could
live up to such concepts. He does not appear to have any true sense
of empathy although he has, over the years, learned to fake it. In
fact, each failure has honed his act to a better, more convincing
one. He doesn't set out to deliberately hurt people when he wants a
relationship, the hurt is a consequence of his own problems.
In other words, he is an expert at sweet talking and at presenting
himself to be what his target wants. Unfortunately, he does not and
cannot understand what motivates his target and cannot get beyond
what he himself wants. He's just getting better and better at
presenting a facade.
Shirley
Canis Ridiculous
-0500
<osgc325ld3qk4r9te...@4ax.com>
>I am cautious of folks who appear to
>be very invested in the lingo.
And, of course, those people cause other people to say "I hate
labels." Labels can be useful *if* they're used as a rough guiide to
tell people where to wager rather than as an Exact Description Of
Reality, which they are decidedly unsuitible for. "Male" implies all
manner of things; I think more of those things are true about me[1]
than not -- I doubt there's any of them that you would not find a
single male about whom it's not true or a single female about whom it
is. Similarly with "heterosexual."
Similarly with "mammal," for that matter.
It's the people big into the terminology who will say "you, Canis,
don't like football or beer, so you can't be male" or "you're willing
to engage in receptive anal sex, so you can't be het."
[1] Relative to how closely they are identical with "male" and how
important they are overall; it may well be that a lot of things that
aren't very important and are only slightly masculine don't apply to
me.
Lusus Naturae
>I myself have never met or seen anyone who self-identified as a
>predator or CHUDWA.
Haven't you, indeed? Hmph!
Chopped Liver
SilverOz
Now now, these days you have to call yourself Differently Sliced
Internals.
SilverOz
M. Shirley Chong
>>I myself have never met or seen anyone who self-identified as a
>>predator or CHUDWA.
Lusus Naturae wrote:
> Haven't you, indeed? Hmph!
>
> Chopped Liver
I stand corrected and apologize profusely. You, sir, are unique in
my experience.
Shirley
Troia
I don't think that "chopped liver" can self-declare.
Unless you insist on being a radical revisionist, I believe it requires
validation from another party.
-- Troia
Golden California Girls
> David Weinshenker wrote:
> > Patti Beadles wrote:
> >
> >>On the alt.com blogs, one of the author started discussing SSC
> >>and RACK
> >
> >
> > I know what SSC is, but what does RACK stand for?
> >
> > -dave w
>
> Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
>
> It is sometimes considered a better approach both because it avoids some
> of the fuzziness of judgement words "safe" and "sane", and also because
> it highlights that we know and acknowledge the risk in some of the
> dangerous play in which we indulge.
That fuzziness you speak of is called prudence. It is the evaluation of the
risk verses the pleasure obtained in taking the risk. I think this is a
decision made by the ethics of the person making the decision. This obviously
varies from person to person.
I think the debate between SSC and RACK reduces to whose version of risk
evaluation is to be used. In SSC it seems to be a collective majority of people
agree the risk is worth the reward. In RACK it seems to be only the two parties
evaluation of the risk versus the reward being in agreement.
I note that in the pursuit of orgasm people do have unprotected sex with
strangers. Sanity or prudence is not always put to the forefront. I think it
is why some people have a hard time with RACK believing that the people involved
may not be capable of processing the risks involved. I don't know if the
opposite is true, if the RACK people have a problem with SSC because they wish
to be imprudent or a civil liberties issue not wanting anyone else involved in
what they see as their decision.
Just some random thoughts.
Lusus Naturae
Ah, but one of the glories of being clueless is that one is not
restrained from all those things that other folks know enough
not to do.
When we come right down to it, I don't suppose true CHUDWAHs can
self-declare either. If I recognize that I'm pretty much
clueless, am I sufficiently clueless to qualify? It's very
difficult for a youngster such as myself to remain unspoiled
when he goes about in bad company such as the folks here on SSB.
Talk about your "Risks of BDSM" -- I lost my capital "C" just
from talking about it.
--
Lusus Naturae
Lusus Naturae
>I stand corrected and apologize profusely. You, sir, are unique in
>my experience.
Thank you, ma'am.
I do feel sorta lonesome. This group, it seems to me, has never
taken sufficient pains to attract CHUDWAHs and make them feel
comfortable here.
--
Lusus Naturae
Nena and Al
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>It's been my exerience that they're
>> not very effective interpersonal communicators and have a difficult
>> time of it when reality doesn't square with theory.
>
>Oh boy does my milege vary. the vest communicators I know are very into
>making sure that the meanings of words they use are mutually understood.
I don't think that our mileage varies that much. Whether they use the
terms or not, the best communicators are those who explain rather than
assume folks know what they mean.
>> Folks were successfully dealing with risk assessment and consent and
>> negotiation for a long time before any of these acronyms were
>> invented. The acronyms are a communication tool, they aren't a
>> substitute for communication.
>
>I see them as part of communication.
If I want to have a general discussion about risk assessment and
consent and line-drawing, the acronyms are going to be valuable. If I
want to play with someone, the acronyms aren't going to be much help.
If I use one, I'll have to explain what I mean by it, maybe smooth
some bumps if they have a different definition, and I'll still have to
tell them all the stuff I already tell folks I want to play with, like
tell me what you like because I enjoy happy noises, and don't say No
or Stop unless you mean it. I'd rather avoid the semantics discussion
and get right to the specific negotiations.
>> Most people I know - everyone I know, actually - wants happy,
>> consensual playtime and relationships whether they use SSC, SRC, RACK,
>> or none of the above.
>
>Heck, I must be living somewhere else.
>
>There's a stream of chudwahs everywhere, I htought.
Not where I am, but then we've got no kinky nighclub or other
more-or-less anonymous venue. There aren't vast numbers of us so some
folks know everybody, most folks know somebody, and someone's going to
know that you're a newcomer whether you want them to or not. It's an
atmosphere that chudwahs find uninviting.
>I've a darker view of humaity, it seems. There are bad guys. there are not
>fewer bad guys in the scene, it's too big. There are predators.
Use of terminology doesn't separate the good guys from the bad guys.
Predators are generally pretty up on the lingo. They want to sound
credible, and they know that using the right words and phrases and
letting the target's imagination fill in the blanks can be a pretty
effective hunting strategy.
>> I do reject the idea that it matters which acronym a person uses. Any
>> assumptions we make about folks based on the acronyms they use (or
>> don't use) are a reflection of what's inside us, not of what's going
>> on with them.
>
>Not necesssarily.
>
>Well, we live in different places. Those different acronyms denote stances
>in scene politics here.
That's the kind of thing that led me to I feel the way I do about
labels. I think they're very useful when they're broadly defined and
as devoid of subtext as possible. When folks start loading them with
emotions or politics they're more likely to hinder communication than
help it because we clearly don't all load them up with the same stuff.
There are terms that carry some freight for me, but there aren't any
that I feel so strongly about that I'm going to go to any effort to
defend or attack them (although I do rant against "domme" from time to
time). There are a few terms that I associate with a certain kind of
person or mindset, but I know that's in my head, not objective
reality.
Nena
Nena and Al
<perro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's the people big into the terminology who will say "you, Canis,
>don't like football or beer, so you can't be male" or "you're willing
>to engage in receptive anal sex, so you can't be het."
Yupper. I've been told I'm not a dom because I enjoy missionary
position sex and giving blowjobs.
Nena
SilverOz
Golden California Girls <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>
> I think the debate between SSC and RACK reduces to whose version of risk
> evaluation is to be used. In SSC it seems to be a collective majority of people
> agree the risk is worth the reward. In RACK it seems to be only the two parties
> evaluation of the risk versus the reward being in agreement.
>
Which bit of SSC do you see involving others?
I suppose "Sane" might, in that there's got to be some way to
determine that both people are competent to consent. "Safe" to me is
about acknowledging both people know the risks and are sure they have
been minimised to acceptable levels, it's not a list of do's and
don'ts.
SilverOz
SilverOz
Well that's only being kind really. Once they hang around for any
length of time, only the really really solidly Clueless ones stay
Clueless.
Would be the height of bad manners to make someone welcome when you
know their self-identity is going to change wouldn't it?
They might even find a partner, and then the Wannabe bit's in danger
too.
THe Het bit appears to be safe though. The Black Labs still haven't
come up with the serum.
SilverOz
David Weinshenker
FWIW, I think I've got a bit of an orientation for "crossed dominance"
scenes - i.e., where the "top/bottom" of the physical activity is not
in the same direction as that of the interaction-power-dynamic. I could
see being a "submissive pitcher" with a "dominant catcher"... "I want
you to make me do X to you" etc. - "bottoming from on top" as it were.
-dave w
SilverOz
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Nena and Al wrote:
>> Yupper. I've been told I'm not a dom because I enjoy missionary
>> position sex and giving blowjobs.
>
> FWIW, I think I've got a bit of an orientation for "crossed dominance"
> scenes - i.e., where the "top/bottom" of the physical activity is not
> in the same direction as that of the interaction-power-dynamic. I could
> see being a "submissive pitcher" with a "dominant catcher"... "I want
> you to make me do X to you" etc. - "bottoming from on top" as it were.
I think it comes down to domination and submission being in the mind,
not the acts.
If someone's giving a blowjob and is doing it in a dominant frame of
mind to someone who is in a submissive frame of mind, then the fact
the act is seen by an outsider as something submissive not dominant is
irrelevant.
I've found that if I am playing with a switchy partner and the
dynamics are right, then we can have a scene where the D and the S
changes - each person is D or S some of the time. The power flows one
way and then the other.
But I have played with a switchy partner and that hasn't happened.
When I was being D, my S partner was doing things that might be seen
as D, but neither of us saw them that way. I was still in control and
he was still under control, the energy didn't change. And ditto when
I was being S.
There is a strong tendency to view BDSM in terms of concrete acts
rather than as mindset. Same same the SSC thing really, to view an
act as "safe" or "not safe" as an absolute rather than taking into
account how the people themselves feel about it and how much risk
minimisation and risk acceptance they've done.
SilverOz
Troia
I'm ... speechless.
(Still smiling, though, thanks.)
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 23:03:26 +1000, "Ruth Lawrence"
> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>It's been my exerience that they're
>>> not very effective interpersonal communicators and have a difficult
>>> time of it when reality doesn't square with theory.
>>
>>Oh boy does my milege vary. the vest communicators I know are very into
>>making sure that the meanings of words they use are mutually understood.
>
> I don't think that our mileage varies that much. Whether they use the
> terms or not, the best communicators are those who explain rather than
> assume folks know what they mean.
>
>>> Folks were successfully dealing with risk assessment and consent and
>>> negotiation for a long time before any of these acronyms were
>>> invented. The acronyms are a communication tool, they aren't a
>>> substitute for communication.
>>
>>I see them as part of communication.
>
> If I want to have a general discussion about risk assessment and
> consent and line-drawing, the acronyms are going to be valuable. If I
> want to play with someone, the acronyms aren't going to be much help.
> If I use one, I'll have to explain what I mean by it, maybe smooth
> some bumps if they have a different definition, and I'll still have to
> tell them all the stuff I already tell folks I want to play with, like
> tell me what you like because I enjoy happy noises, and don't say No
> or Stop unless you mean it. I'd rather avoid the semantics discussion
> and get right to the specific negotiations.
Oh heck, I've never directly referred to SSC. SRC, RACK etc when negotiation
a scene. I see them as useful in public scene space.
>
>>> Most people I know - everyone I know, actually - wants happy,
>>> consensual playtime and relationships whether they use SSC, SRC, RACK,
>>> or none of the above.
>>
>>Heck, I must be living somewhere else.
>>
>>There's a stream of chudwahs everywhere, I htought.
>
> Not where I am, but then we've got no kinky nighclub or other
> more-or-less anonymous venue.
Oh, I see, we have several.
Totally new folks step out at them, one in particular.
There really are chudwahs and predators in them from time to time., hence to
use of easily-remembered acronyms.
>There aren't vast numbers of us so some
> folks know everybody, most folks know somebody, and someone's going to
> know that you're a newcomer whether you want them to or not. It's an
> atmosphere that chudwahs find uninviting.
Our chudwahs tend to be a subsection of the noobs.
> Use of terminology doesn't separate the good guys from the bad guys.
NO, it doesn't, but an over-earned idea could help a subby, see?
> Predators are generally pretty up on the lingo. They want to sound
> credible, and they know that using the right words and phrases and
> letting the target's imagination fill in the blanks can be a pretty
> effective hunting strategy.
Well, in a more beging fashion, isn't this what trustworthy doms
can be like if they are looking?
>>Well, we live in different places. Those different acronyms denote
>>stances
>>in scene politics here.
>
> That's the kind of thing that led me to I feel the way I do about
> labels. I think they're very useful when they're broadly defined and
> as devoid of subtext as possible. When folks start loading them with
> emotions or politics they're more likely to hinder communication than
> help it because we clearly don't all load them up with the same stuff.
Eeeyup.
> There are terms that carry some freight for me, but there aren't any
> that I feel so strongly about that I'm going to go to any effort to
> defend or attack them (although I do rant against "domme" from time to
> time). There are a few terms that I associate with a certain kind of
> person or mindset, but I know that's in my head, not objective
> reality.
>
I've grown to associate the rejection of SSC and TCR by a dominant *who
claims they are oppressive of them*, as a warning signal, especialy where
there is alchohol involved.
Folks don't tend to be intellectually sophisticated at out events (however
they are at home), I should note.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:44382DBB...@earthlink.net...
> Nena and Al wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:00:00 -0400, Canis Ridiculous
>> <perro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's the people big into the terminology who will say "you, Canis,
>> >don't like football or beer, so you can't be male" or "you're willing
>> >to engage in receptive anal sex, so you can't be het."
>>
>> Yupper. I've been told I'm not a dom because I enjoy missionary
>> position sex and giving blowjobs.
>
> FWIW, I think I've got a bit of an orientation for "crossed dominance"
> scenes - i.e., where the "top/bottom" of the physical activity is not
> in the same direction as that of the interaction-power-dynamic.
Heh, I share that, but it's not all that I like...
>I could
> see being a "submissive pitcher" with a "dominant catcher"... "I want
> you to make me do X to you" etc. - "bottoming from on top" as it were.
:::laughs::: depending on how it's done, I like that too :-)
I reckon my being bi messes clean dominant and submissive patterns up
totally where I'm concerned.
Since I don't do 24/7, that a feature, not a bug for me. I can do far more
things from the apparent bottom than otherwise, and am happy with a dom's
Sekrit Sub Side.
I seem to recall Mr Thorney wrote about this at some time.
Ruth, neither fish nor fowl and a bi, poly switch
Golden California Girls
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:56:52 -0700
> Golden California Girls <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
> >
> > I think the debate between SSC and RACK reduces to whose version of risk
> > evaluation is to be used. In SSC it seems to be a collective majority of people
> > agree the risk is worth the reward. In RACK it seems to be only the two parties
> > evaluation of the risk versus the reward being in agreement.
> >
>
> Which bit of SSC do you see involving others?
>
As for involving others, I didn't mean literally. More like what would average
pervert would think of this.
While I hate it I think a lot of people, perhaps more so less experienced, think of
the safe + sane as some sort of community standards test. Not a list but a
hypothetical reasonable person with detached interest.
>
> I suppose "Sane" might, in that there's got to be some way to
> determine that both people are competent to consent. "Safe" to me is
> about acknowledging both people know the risks and are sure they have
> been minimised to acceptable levels, it's not a list of do's and
> don'ts.
>
Sane is one that a person themselves can't determine. I don't think we need to run
to a head shrinker every time we want to play, but we do need to worry about
temporary insanity.
Safe is all you say if that includes backup plans for when things go wrong. It isn't
just planing for how to get acceptable outcomes but damage control for any possible
bad event.
>
> SilverOz
SuzanneM
: I once inquired on a BDSM list how one might go about a snuff scene. I
: wasn't sure I was ready to top it because of how I might feel about
: myself afterwards, and I was looking for ways to mitigate the fall-out.
: I was accused by more than one person of being dangerous, crazy,
: insane, and homicidal.
I'm not surprised you were accused. Did you get other reactions too?
How would you go about a snuff scene? In general, the top
doesn't get away with it. Lopatka's killer went to jail, this
German cannibal will too.
A long time ago I got in touch with a guy who's into snuff
("impalement") through asb. He seemed to be really serious,
though I doubt that he'd ever kill someone. Otoh, He did know
the Lopatka killer. He invited me to a beach party in Southern
California, which I politely declined.
I'm not into snuff, but you get to think of it if you're into
everything else that's extreme. Apart from legal issues, what
are the ethical issues if the bottom is really determined to
get killed? I mean, hypothesizing there's a way of making sure
they really do?
dag
Suzanne M
--
toy at the end of a chain -- www.xs4all.nl/~tateoac
Bladerunner
SuzanneM wrote:
> Bladerunner <bldr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : I once inquired on a BDSM list how one might go about a snuff scene. I
> : wasn't sure I was ready to top it because of how I might feel about
> : myself afterwards, and I was looking for ways to mitigate the fall-out.
> : I was accused by more than one person of being dangerous, crazy,
> : insane, and homicidal.
>
> I'm not surprised you were accused. Did you get other reactions too?
> How would you go about a snuff scene? In general, the top
> doesn't get away with it. Lopatka's killer went to jail, this
> German cannibal will too.
It didn't occur to me that on this list I'd need to put the prefix
"psuedo-" before the word snuff. My apologies. I was looking into how
to set up a *pseudo-*snuff scene. I believe I've written about those
scenes since on SSBB, though I couldn't begin to remember how long ago
or what the subject line might have been.
And yes, I did get other reactions. I got everything from "Hrm.
Interesting, but not my cup of tea..." to "Wowohwowthat'sfuckinhawt!",
several volunteers to bottom to me for when I decided I was ready for
that scene, and a very lovely post from someone I honestly thought
didn't give a flying fig about me defending me to the accusers. That
was a nice surprise.
> I'm not into snuff, but you get to think of it if you're into
> everything else that's extreme. Apart from legal issues, what
> are the ethical issues if the bottom is really determined to
> get killed? I mean, hypothesizing there's a way of making sure
> they really do?
As no one was really determined to kill or be killed, it wasn't really
much of an issue. Though I suppose I ought to look into the ensuing
legal issues in case I have an accident.
Bladerunner
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Portland, OR
Next appearing on the Dirty White Chicks radio show (4/5):
http://ynotradio.com/episodes/index.php?showId=13
Philip_the_Foole
> SuzanneM wrote:
>>I'm not surprised you were accused. Did you get other reactions too?
>>How would you go about a snuff scene? In general, the top
>>doesn't get away with it.
>
>
> to set up a *pseudo-*snuff scene. "
I've had the pleasure of being Bladerunner's stunt bottom for several
"knife snuff" scenes.
To quote a famous line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"I'm not dead!"
(yet)
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Highly Trained Professional Stunt Pervert
"Well, here you are, naked and tied up with duct tape in an abandoned
warehouse, about to be tortured by a serial killer."
"Mmmmm. Right where I want to be."
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
Bladerunner
Philip_the_Foole wrote:
>
> I've had the pleasure of being Bladerunner's stunt bottom for several
> "knife snuff" scenes.
>
> To quote a famous line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
>
> "I'm not dead!"
>
> (yet)
Which reminds me -
(tying in the Foole, or the mili-Wiseman unit of negotiation thread)
I'll be at Tribal Fire in Oklahoma in May. "Wanna do some stuff?"
Bladerunner
displaying her skills at the fine art of negotiation
Nena and Al
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Seems like we don't disagree much about this stuff.
>> Predators are generally pretty up on the lingo. They want to sound
>> credible, and they know that using the right words and phrases and
>> letting the target's imagination fill in the blanks can be a pretty
>> effective hunting strategy.
>
>Well, in a more beging fashion, isn't this what trustworthy doms
>can be like if they are looking?
Yup. That's why it works for the predators. A little healthy
skepticism is a good thing.
>I've grown to associate the rejection of SSC and TCR by a dominant *who
>claims they are oppressive of them*, as a warning signal, especialy where
>there is alchohol involved.
I wouldn't worry about someone who rejected the terms, but I wouldn't
want much to do with someone who rejected the concepts.
Nena
Nena and Al
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
> I think it
>is why some people have a hard time with RACK believing that the people involved
>may not be capable of processing the risks involved.
This is really my problem with the whole issue. Why do so many people
feel the need to do other people's risk assessment? I'm not talking
about offering advice, I mean telling others not to do X because it is
to risky for me. I understand that RACK is supposed to address this
problem, but I think the proper way to address it is to tell them to
mind their own business.
Unless I'm a participant my assessment of the risks is immaterial. If
I'm the party host or DM I have some say in what goes on, but other
than that why should anyone care what I think they should or shouldn't
do? Why should they substitute my judgment for their own? I'm not
about to let anyone else start doing my risk assessment, so I figure I
owe everyone the courtesy of not doing theirs.
As a practical matter, what am I going to do if I think that your
private activities aren't SSC? Physically intervene to stop you?
Call the cops? Unless I'm ready to go there, I don't think it's my
place to make decisions for you.
Nena
SilverOz
I think it depends on how the terms are rejected. Someone who focuses
on how it's only for wimps/novices or other people who are not as
experienced and enlightened would be someone I think I'd walk away
from.
Someone who rejected them as insufficiently nuanced or because they
are just a start, that's different.
SilverOz
SilverOz
> feel the need to do other people's risk assessment? I'm not talking
This cyclist and motorcyclist and ex-motorcycle-racer wonders the same
thing :)
I've learned to take "that's unsafe" or "that's too risky!" as having
an unstated "for me" on the end, and ignore it. Sometimes, such as
when people think that having the iPod on when I'm riding is too
dangerous, I ask why, and then have fun watching them flounder when
they start getting into things like relative frequencies of sirens.
Getting people to examine their prejudices and think a bit can be
entertaining, but is wearing. It's usually easier to just roll eyes
and change the topic.
SilverOz
Philip_the_Foole
I shall alert Igor.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
As my mother used to say, "I am a party all by myself!"
And she was unanimous in that.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Bladerunner
Ruth Lawrence
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 12:11:38 +1000, "Ruth Lawrence"
> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> Seems like we don't disagree much about this stuff.
:::relief:::
I probably wasn't very clear, and I'm living somewhere different.
> Yup. That's why it works for the predators. A little healthy
> skepticism is a good thing.
There actually may not be any way to truly hock seriously
sophisticated predators, some of whom may also be
doing acceptable stuff in the scene, even.
>
>>I've grown to associate the rejection of SSC and TCR by a dominant *who
>>claims they are oppressive of them*, as a warning signal, especialy where
>>there is alchohol involved.
>
> I wouldn't worry about someone who rejected the terms, but I wouldn't
> want much to do with someone who rejected the concepts.
I getcha.
:::nods:::
Sometimes I've felt it was the concepts, but then it's amazing what some
folks will do to seem attractive, too.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
"SilverOz" <Silv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrne3lgnu....@localhost.localdomain...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:22:44 -0500
> Nena and Al <m...@madamegiggles.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 12:11:38 +1000, "Ruth Lawrence"
>><curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I've grown to associate the rejection of SSC and TCR by a dominant *who
>>>claims they are oppressive of them*, as a warning signal, especialy where
>>>there is alchohol involved.
>>
>> I wouldn't worry about someone who rejected the terms, but I wouldn't
>> want much to do with someone who rejected the concepts.
>
> I think it depends on how the terms are rejected. Someone who focuses
> on how it's only for wimps/novices or other people who are not as
> experienced and enlightened would be someone I think I'd walk away
> from.
As I have done.
Ruth
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:56:52 -0700, Golden California Girls
> <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>
>> I think it
>> is why some people have a hard time with RACK believing that the people involved
>> may not be capable of processing the risks involved.
>
> This is really my problem with the whole issue. Why do so many people
> feel the need to do other people's risk assessment? I'm not talking
> about offering advice, I mean telling others not to do X because it is
> to risky for me. I understand that RACK is supposed to address this
> problem, but I think the proper way to address it is to tell them to
> mind their own business.
>
> Unless I'm a participant my assessment of the risks is immaterial. If
> I'm the party host or DM I have some say in what goes on, but other
> than that why should anyone care what I think they should or shouldn't
> do? Why should they substitute my judgment for their own? I'm not
> about to let anyone else start doing my risk assessment, so I figure I
> owe everyone the courtesy of not doing theirs.
I understand your point, and agree to a large extent. But there is the
other side of the coin: We, as a community, took it upon ourselves (and
had to) to delimit us from "them" - the abusers, the bad guys, the
unsafe players. I think we all agree that it is important to be able to
say "we are *not* abusers". Well, how do you tell the two apart if not
by passing judgment? That's why the term SSC was invented in the first
place.
And it is a to the originator's credit that we have now come to the
point where we aren't constantly thinking about that any more, where we
take SSC (or RACK) for granted to the degree that this thread shows.
> As a practical matter, what am I going to do if I think that your
> private activities aren't SSC? Physically intervene to stop you?
> Call the cops?
What would you do if you knew of an abuser's private activities?
How do you distinguish between an abuser and somebody who you feel isn't
SSC or RACK, but is practicing BDSM?
> Unless I'm ready to go there, I don't think it's my
> place to make decisions for you.
--
Offering chains and freedom for nice ladies in Southern California.
http://www.geocities.com/prison_lover/index.html
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have
no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the
current President.
Cheeky Girl
I think that the risk of predators come from both sides of the coin. It
isn't *always* the Dominants you have to be concerned about.
Cheeky Girl
Golden California Girls
I think you may have missed the point. Usually I associate abuse with the C letter
consent. Most of us know where we fall on that one.
The question being posed isn't one of consent but one of failure to assess and control
risk. Someone who may be expert in some given activity may be able to do something
with a margin of safety where as a novice in it may be likely to maim.
So you are privy to a scene. The actors in it are obviously consenting. The activity
is one that potentially has a very high degree of risk, so high it's on you squick
list. You don't know if the actors are novice or expert. What do you do if anything?
Ruth Lawrence
"Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote b
>
> I think that the risk of predators come from both sides of the coin. It
> isn't *always* the Dominants you have to be concerned about.
Alas, I know this too. Escaped fast, but it was truly icky.
I guess I worry about those who are nonconsensually physically assaultive
under the guise of BDSM 'play' because I've experienced that, too. Pretty
much sent me back into my burrow for five years.
Being new meat isn't/hasn't been easy for some of us.
Ruth
Nena and Al
kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>We, as a community, took it upon ourselves (and
>had to) to delimit us from "them" - the abusers, the bad guys, the
>unsafe players. I think we all agree that it is important to be able to
>say "we are *not* abusers". Well, how do you tell the two apart if not
>by passing judgment? That's why the term SSC was invented in the first
>place.
Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
I've seen it opined here before that there are some activities that
should be beyond the pale - gun play, breath play, scat play, what
have you - because they are activities that the world at large will
never be able to accept. Defending those activities as OK will
prevent BDSM from gaining acceptance. I think that if we have to
disenfranchise members of our community to gain acceptance, it's not
worth it.
>What would you do if you knew of an abuser's private activities?
I dunno. I'd have to be pretty darned sure that my take on the
situation was accurate before I'd do anything. I work with cops and
child/adult protection folks - if I thought there was something awful
going on I'd likely talk with one of them about it. If I knew for a
fact that someone was raping, child-molesting or some such thing, I'd
turn them in.
>How do you distinguish between an abuser and somebody who you feel isn't
>SSC or RACK, but is practicing BDSM?
It can be damned difficult, and if I call it wrong I could cause
someone a lot of headaches - that someone could be me. The talk I
hear about abuse and non-SSC behavior is generally speculation
(usually the case in online venues), gossip or post-scene regret.
Few of the stories of abuse I've heard were actually about abuse.
Most were stories of mismatched expectations and poor communication.
I don't have an opinion about whether other people are SSC or RACK. I
think that's between them and their partners and playmates. If
they're happy, it's okay by me. It's not that I'm vastly evolved and
open minded. I don't like drama, so I don't get involved in other
people's shit.
Nena
Cheeky Girl
I totally agree with you Ruth! It is hard to know what and who to
believe.
I will say that I have been lucky, and not hurt physically, but
sometimes the emotional pain is just as bad. Putting your trust in
someone and then having it ripped away can be very difficult to take.
Cheeky Girl
Ruth Lawrence
"Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:443d09b3$0$84398$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
> I will say that I have been lucky, and not hurt physically, but sometimes
> the emotional pain is just as bad. Putting your trust in someone and then
> having it ripped away can be very difficult to take.
I have less, now, which I guess is sensible :-)
Ruth
Cheeky Girl
Akkk, I don't want to be sensible!!!!! But, for safety sake as well as
emotional protection, I suppose it must be done! For now anyway....<weg>
Cheeky Girl
Ruth Lawrence
> Ruth Lawrence wrote:
>> "Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:443d09b3$0$84398$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>
>>
>>>I will say that I have been lucky, and not hurt physically, but sometimes
>>>the emotional pain is just as bad. Putting your trust in someone and
>>>then having it ripped away can be very difficult to take.
>>
>>
>> I have less, now, which I guess is sensible :-)
>>
>> Ruth
>>
>
> Akkk, I don't want to be sensible!!!!!
Underneath, underneath!
(a nice place anyhoo, eh?)
>But, for safety sake as well as emotional protection, I suppose it must be
>done! For now >anyway....<weg>
It's your call :-)
Ruth
Cheeky Girl
> "Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:443d1077$0$84396$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
>>Ruth Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>>"Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:443d09b3$0$84398$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I will say that I have been lucky, and not hurt physically, but sometimes
>>>>the emotional pain is just as bad. Putting your trust in someone and
>>>>then having it ripped away can be very difficult to take.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have less, now, which I guess is sensible :-)
>>>
>>>Ruth
>>>
>>
>>Akkk, I don't want to be sensible!!!!!
>
>
> Underneath, underneath!
>
> (a nice place anyhoo, eh?)
>
>
>>But, for safety sake as well as emotional protection, I suppose it must be
>>done! For now >anyway....<weg>
>
>
> It's your call :-)
>
> Ruth
>
>
>
Hey, you know me Ruth, I am just being difficult...lol..
I have had a recent wakeup call, and am enjoying a self indulgent snit.
But, as always it won't last and life will go on!
I enjoy life in general to much to allow a little set back to taint my
view of the things for to long!
Cheeky Girl
Ruth Lawrence
> Ruth Lawrence wrote:
>> "Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:443d1077$0$84396$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>
>>>Ruth Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Cheeky Girl" <umha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:443d09b3$0$84398$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I will say that I have been lucky, and not hurt physically, but
>>>>>sometimes the emotional pain is just as bad. Putting your trust in
>>>>>someone and then having it ripped away can be very difficult to take.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have less, now, which I guess is sensible :-)
>>>>
>>>>Ruth
>>>>
>>>
>>>Akkk, I don't want to be sensible!!!!!
>>
>>
>> Underneath, underneath!
>>
>> (a nice place anyhoo, eh?)
>>
>>
>>>But, for safety sake as well as emotional protection, I suppose it must
>>>be done! For now >anyway....<weg>
>>
>>
>> It's your call :-)
>>
>> Ruth
>>
>
> Hey, you know me Ruth, I am just being difficult...lol..
You hope Miss Rue will manifest?
> I have had a recent wakeup call, and am enjoying a self indulgent snit.
Me too, me too.
> But, as always it won't last and life will go on!
It's so. And I have a birthday coming up.
(there has been a hint of a 'spanking'...)
> I enjoy life in general to much to allow a little set back to taint my
> view of the things for to long!
A good philosophy!
Ruth
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:51:28 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> We, as a community, took it upon ourselves (and
>> had to) to delimit us from "them" - the abusers, the bad guys, the
>> unsafe players. I think we all agree that it is important to be able to
>> say "we are *not* abusers". Well, how do you tell the two apart if not
>> by passing judgment? That's why the term SSC was invented in the first
>> place.
>
> Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
> appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
the first place, to give us a standard to judge against. Even with all
the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
"is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?" Or if you go by the
RACK philosophy: "is it consensual?" and "are all involved parties aware
of the risks and have consented to them?"
Granted, you can then still ask "what does safe mean?" but it's a much
smaller question than "should I even judge?"
In the end, I think what you are trying to accomplish is good - allow as
many activities as possible, no matter how squicky they are, just as
long as they don't "go too far". I consider it very valuable to have
some questions, guidelines, that narrow the line very useful. And
because I agree with "allow as much as possible" I subscribe to RACK.
>> How do you distinguish between an abuser and somebody who you feel isn't
>> SSC or RACK, but is practicing BDSM?
>
> It can be damned difficult, and if I call it wrong I could cause
> someone a lot of headaches - that someone could be me. The talk I
> hear about abuse and non-SSC behavior is generally speculation
> (usually the case in online venues), gossip or post-scene regret.
> Few of the stories of abuse I've heard were actually about abuse.
> Most were stories of mismatched expectations and poor communication.
Oh, absolutely. And that's again where I believe the value of the
concepts of SSC or RACK come into play.
> I don't have an opinion about whether other people are SSC or RACK. I
> think that's between them and their partners and playmates. If
> they're happy, it's okay by me. It's not that I'm vastly evolved and
> open minded. I don't like drama, so I don't get involved in other
> people's shit.
It seems to me that these are two separate arguments. One is "from an
ethical standpoint, *nobody* should judge other people's SSC/RACK
approach" and the other is "*I* will not judge." That second one is
understandable; nobody likes to get involved with other people's messes.
The first one is the one I disagree with, for the reasons I outlined above.
M. Shirley Chong
>>Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
>>appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
> the first place, to give us a standard to judge against. Even with all
> the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
> appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
> "is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?" Or if you go by the
> RACK philosophy: "is it consensual?" and "are all involved parties aware
> of the risks and have consented to them?"
Is it safe *according to whose standards*? What I might consider
safe enough may well be regarded by one person as incredibly risky
and by another person as ho-hum, don't give it a thought safe.
Is it sane *according to whose standards*? Again, what one person
might consider downright certifiable may seem perfectly fine to
someone else.
Is it consensual *according to whose standards*? Some people don't
feel a given act is consensual unless each party has gone over and
agreed to all the known and possible risks complete with citations.
Other people feel a given act is consensual if each partner agrees
"well, bad things could happen but we're agreed we want to do it
anyway."
Same questions for RACK. How detailed an outline of the risks
involved is required? And what level of consent is valid?
Those questions don't replace the basic question of "whose judgment
counts here?" Answering those questions is meaningless until that
first underlying question has been answered. If my judgment doesn't
count or Nena's judgment doesn't count or your judgment doesn't
count, then there's not much point in passing judgment.
If my judgment counts or Nena's judgment or your judgment, then what
actions are incumbent upon us if the proposed scene doesn't meet our
own personal standards?
> In the end, I think what you are trying to accomplish is good - allow as
> many activities as possible, no matter how squicky they are, just as
> long as they don't "go too far". I consider it very valuable to have
> some questions, guidelines, that narrow the line very useful. And
> because I agree with "allow as much as possible" I subscribe to RACK.
But whose definition of "too far" are you going to use?
For myself, my answer is that if all the parties have attained their
majority and appear to be mentally competent, it's up to them to
decide for themselves what they find acceptable.
I tolerate a fair amount of what others would probably perceive as
coercion. So long as there is some way for the person about to be
acted upon to back out, even if backing out comes with an emotional
price, then they do have the ability to say no. If there's coercion,
it becomes a matter of the coerced person's priorities and I don't
think I have the right to decide for the vast majority of other
adults what their priorities should be. I may not agree with their
priorities but they probably don't agree with my priorities either.
Since I want to be free to make my own decisions, even to make
decisions that seem obviously foolish or wrong to other people, I
have to extend that same freedom to others. I don't think I'm so
special that I deserve special treatment.
If someone seems to me to lack mental competence--say the other
person stated one position vehemently early in the evening then got
drunk and is now in an intoxicated state asserting quite a different
position--then I feel obligated to act. Talk to the other person or
people in the scene, talk to the host (if there is one), call the
police.
How far up the line I go depends on my own perception of the
possible future harm. If someone said early in the evening that
there was no way they would ever eat a slice of pizza with
anchovies, then got drunk and is now about to eat pizza with
anchovies, I'd feel that I should find out why they stated earlier
they'd never eat such a thing. If it's because they would find it so
squicky that they'd have to be drunk to consider it, well, I'd stand
back and stay out of the route to the bathroom. But if they stated
that they wouldn't eat pizza with anchovies because they'd had an
anaphylactic shock reaction in the past that was strongly suspected
to be triggered by anchovies, I'd do everything I could to stop them
from drunkenly trying out that slice of pizza.
An example from my own life: while I was in the hospital last year,
I contracted an intestinal infection while hospitalized. The
antibiotic I was given was metronidazole. At this point, I was
heavily drugged and still having periodic hallucinations, so I don't
think I was mentally competent to make any important decisions. Each
time they gave me a dose (four times a day), it made me feel funny.
I couldn't really verbalize what I meant by "feel funny" so they
continued to give me the antibiotic. Until I did have an
anaphylactic shock reaction and came thisclose to having an
emergency tracheotomy so I could breathe.
As in many large teaching hospitals, communication was not always
good from shift to shift. Had I been given metronidazole again, I
would have sued. Even though I theoretically had the right to refuse
any treatment I did not believe was in my own best interests, I was
not mentally competent to exercise that right in a meaningful way.
For several weeks, I couldn't remember if I'd actually had the
Incredible Swelling Patient Incident or if it was something I'd
dreamed. I finally asked my husband who was there at the time and
was assured that it really did happen and they really were talking
about an emergency tracheotomy. So my refusal or acceptance of a
given treatment would be highly suspect while I was in that state.
Now, however, I'm not drugged and I believe myself to be mentally
competent. If I had an infection and the doctor overlooked the
notation in my chart that I'm highly allergic to metronidazole and
prescribed it, I wouldn't sue if I were so foolish as to take the
stuff. I know that I'm allergic and my safety is in my own hands. As
I believe it should be.
> It seems to me that these are two separate arguments. One is "from an
> ethical standpoint, *nobody* should judge other people's SSC/RACK
> approach" and the other is "*I* will not judge." That second one is
> understandable; nobody likes to get involved with other people's messes.
>
> The first one is the one I disagree with, for the reasons I outlined above.
I think I must have missed your reasons. I went back through the
thread and couldn't find a post that seemed to me to outline them.
On what grounds would you find it ethical to judge and possibly
interfere with the actions of others?
Shirley
Troia
...
> An example from my own life: while I was in the hospital last year, I
> contracted an intestinal infection while hospitalized. The antibiotic I
> was given was metronidazole. At this point, I was heavily drugged and
> still having periodic hallucinations, so I don't think I was mentally
> competent to make any important decisions. Each time they gave me a dose
> (four times a day), it made me feel funny. I couldn't really verbalize
> what I meant by "feel funny" so they continued to give me the
> antibiotic. Until I did have an anaphylactic shock reaction and came
> thisclose to having an emergency tracheotomy so I could breathe.
>
> As in many large teaching hospitals, communication was not always good
> from shift to shift. Had I been given metronidazole again, I would have
> sued. Even though I theoretically had the right to refuse any treatment
> I did not believe was in my own best interests, I was not mentally
> competent to exercise that right in a meaningful way. For several weeks,
> I couldn't remember if I'd actually had the Incredible Swelling Patient
> Incident or if it was something I'd dreamed. I finally asked my husband
> who was there at the time and was assured that it really did happen and
> they really were talking about an emergency tracheotomy. So my refusal
> or acceptance of a given treatment would be highly suspect while I was
> in that state.
Found this interesting, as I had a reaction to the same drug (aka
"Flagyl") many years ago, and to this day so many doctors don't seem to
know the reactions it can provoke in some people. In my case, on the
very first (but strong) dose, I lost feeling in extremities and had
other CNS symptoms. Had to argue with doctors about the effects on me
and the cause being the Flagyl, and do my own research to find out that
this was not exactly uncommon (far more common than with other
antibiotics, as it is actually a different sort of drug.) I find that
most of the info on the drug does not list these possible reactions, and
yet there is a "Who should not take this drug" that says "Check with
your physician if you have any of the following: Conditions: Lower
Seizure Threshold, Numbness, Tingling or Pain of Hands or Feet, Severe
Liver Disease, Seizures" etc.
Well, itt was not as bad as the muscle-paralysis response I had to
methergine, though ... the one where my lungs seemed to not want to
expand (dyspnea), I could not turn my head without great effort, and I
was unable to move enough to get myself dressed. (Fortunately, I had
help to get to a hospital, and was able to just wait out the dose
wearing off, but it was pretty terrifying at the time.) Big difference
was that doctors seemed aware such a reaction was possible.
And yet, I tolerate most drugs better than most people.
-- Troia
Nena and Al
kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
>> appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
>
>Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
>the first place, to give us a standard to judge against.
What or who is it that we're judging?
>Even with all
>the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
>appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
>"is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?"
The thing you think makes these terms valuable is the same thing that
I think makes them a problem. We get right into passing judgment
without dealing with the question of whether it is appropriate to do
so.
>In the end, I think what you are trying to accomplish is good - allow as
>many activities as possible, no matter how squicky they are, just as
>long as they don't "go too far".
That's not what I'm saying at all. "Allow as much as possible"
implies that we've got some control over people's private activities.
We don't. Then there's that question again of who decides what's
going too far. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that for anyone
but me.
>I consider it very valuable to have
>some questions, guidelines, that narrow the line very useful. And
>because I agree with "allow as much as possible" I subscribe to RACK.
What would you do if something you enjoy doing fell outside the
guidelines?
Nena
Golden California Girls
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:23:24 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
> >> appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
> >
> >Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
> >the first place, to give us a standard to judge against.
>
> What or who is it that we're judging?
>
> >Even with all
> >the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
> >appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
> >"is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?"
>
> The thing you think makes these terms valuable is the same thing that
> I think makes them a problem. We get right into passing judgment
> without dealing with the question of whether it is appropriate to do
> so.
>
> >In the end, I think what you are trying to accomplish is good - allow as
> >many activities as possible, no matter how squicky they are, just as
> >long as they don't "go too far".
>
> That's not what I'm saying at all. "Allow as much as possible"
> implies that we've got some control over people's private activities.
> We don't. Then there's that question again of who decides what's
> going too far. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that for anyone
> but me.
I think there are two judgments that are in play. The first is, do you think
the activity passes as SSC /RACK? The second is, do you do something if you
don't think it passes as SSC / RACK?
The first part has been expounded upon here at length. It may not be settled
but it is about WIITWD.
The second part is a general ethical obligation we owe to society / humanity in
general. It is no different that seeing a burglar breaking into a house, an
obvious drunk driving a car, a person on a bridge over the river dumping liquids
into the river, or a parent hitting a child with obvious excessive force. Do
you become involved or do you do nothing?
If you want to say I won't pass judgment on SSC / RACK, is it a cop out for not
being willing to do something if you decided it wasn't SSC / RACK? It is fine
and dandy to say I don't have all the facts, but at some point in your life you
may become privy to a situation where you do have all the facts. What do you do
then?
Suppose you hear a terrible fight between a neighbor and his spouse. You hear
stuff being thrown and breaking. You hear blows being exchanged. Maybe you
even see a flash of one having the other in a headlock and punching them in the
face. You even hear something that sounds like a gunshot. Do you decide it is
consensual BDSM? Do you decide it isn't and send the cops?
Now I know this isn't exactly applicable if you are a DM at an event. There you
do have to make some SSC / RACK decisions. Sometimes you'll error and stop
something because you don't have the knowledge to know it is "safe." One
organization I belonged to had a good answer for that. If the players wanted to
do the activity at future events, they were requested to put on a class on the
activity and how to do it safely.
As for a person attending an event with DM's the cop out can apply. After all
someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable is there to monitor. Of course
their pair of eyes doesn't see everything. Do you tap the shoulder of the DM
and suggest they take a look at a scene?
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:23:24 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
>>> appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
>> Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
>> the first place, to give us a standard to judge against.
>
> What or who is it that we're judging?
Ultimately, the goal is to judge whether a certain activity (or person)
is acting in an acceptable way. It's really not fundamentally different
from the way we judge whether people's actions in the vanilla world are
acceptable.
>> Even with all
>> the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
>> appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
>> "is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?"
>
> The thing you think makes these terms valuable is the same thing that
> I think makes them a problem. We get right into passing judgment
> without dealing with the question of whether it is appropriate to do
> so.
Passing judgment is fundamentally unavoidable. Even if I accept your
premise, you would still be passing judgment on whether it's appropriate
to pass judgment. Basically, a "meta-judgment".
I don't think there is anything wrong with passing judgment on
*anything*. It is inappropriate to *act* on judgment based on too narrow
criteria.
>> In the end, I think what you are trying to accomplish is good - allow as
>> many activities as possible, no matter how squicky they are, just as
>> long as they don't "go too far".
>
> That's not what I'm saying at all. "Allow as much as possible"
> implies that we've got some control over people's private activities.
> We don't.
Of course we do. Otherwise, we couldn't condemn Armin Meives, the man
who *consensually* killed and ate another man he found on the Internet.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/09/germany.cannibal.trial.ap/index.html
> Then there's that question again of who decides what's going too far.
> I don't think I'm qualified to decide that for anyone but me.
Same example. We could of course argue that because it was consensual
and happened in private, we should not pass judgment. If that's what you
mean, we have a fundamental disagreement.
If that's not what you mean, then could you clarify?
My own answer relies on SSC. Killing somebody is obviously not safe, and
arguably not sane.
>> I consider it very valuable to have
>> some questions, guidelines, that narrow the line very useful. And
>> because I agree with "allow as much as possible" I subscribe to RACK.
>
> What would you do if something you enjoy doing fell outside the
> guidelines?
Can you give a good example? The only examples I could come up with are
inherently either crimes or at least unethical in the first place, and I
suspect that this is always the case. I cannot think of something that
falls outside RACK and is still legal and ethical.
David Weinshenker
> My own answer relies on SSC. Killing somebody is obviously not safe, and
> arguably not sane.
Well, since we're considering edge cases: suppose I'm at a biological end
point... suppose I'm soon to die anyway, disabled and in increasing misery
from a condition for which medical technology has no further relief to offer,
such that this incarnation is of no further use to me one way or each other...
such that death, once it finally comes, would be a mere relief rather than
a tragic foreclosure of future possibilities: in such a circumstance, would
it really be "not sane" if I should want to "lay me down with a will", to
choose the moment and manner of my death rather than letting nature take
its course?
-dave w
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> Nena wrote:
>
>>> Who decides whether someone is an unsafe player? When is it
>>> appropriate for me to impose my judgment on others?
>
> Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
>
>> Agreed - and that's exactly why we need the concepts of SSC or RACK in
>> the first place, to give us a standard to judge against. Even with all
>> the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
>> appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
>> "is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?" Or if you go by the
>> RACK philosophy: "is it consensual?" and "are all involved parties aware
>> of the risks and have consented to them?"
>
> Is it safe *according to whose standards*?
> Same questions for RACK. How detailed an outline of the risks involved
> is required? And what level of consent is valid?
Your point is very valid; these indeed are concerns (and frequently
discussed). However, it's besides the point. My point is that these
questions are, while still difficult enough, narrower in scope and
therefore easier to answer than the extremely broad question "whose
judgment matters?"
> Those questions don't replace the basic question of "whose judgment
> counts here?" Answering those questions is meaningless until that first
> underlying question has been answered. If my judgment doesn't count or
> Nena's judgment doesn't count or your judgment doesn't count, then
> there's not much point in passing judgment.
>
> If my judgment counts or Nena's judgment or your judgment, then what
> actions are incumbent upon us if the proposed scene doesn't meet our own
> personal standards?
I think that the answer isn't binary, but rather depends on many
factors, such as both party's experience level, just how egregious the
violation is, the amount of information available, etc.
Example: let's say I see a scene involving gun play involving live
ammunition (assume that no innocent bystanders are at risk, and assume
informed consent). Now I believe that such gun play is inherently not
safe. Whose judgment counts in this case would depend, among other
things, on whether the people involved are experienced at handling firearms.
> I tolerate a fair amount of what others would probably perceive as
> coercion. So long as there is some way for the person about to be acted
> upon to back out, even if backing out comes with an emotional price,
> then they do have the ability to say no. If there's coercion, it becomes
> a matter of the coerced person's priorities and I don't think I have the
> right to decide for the vast majority of other adults what their
> priorities should be. I may not agree with their priorities but they
> probably don't agree with my priorities either.
I'm assuming that you are not talking about consensual non-consent here?
That would be OK, of course.
Otherwise, here I fundamentally disagree. Coercion means non-consent,
period. For some very mild forms of coercion, there may be a gray zone,
but other than that, I'd say that this is much more clear-cut than the
questions of "safe" and "sane".
> Since I want to be free to make my own decisions, even to make decisions
> that seem obviously foolish or wrong to other people, I have to extend
> that same freedom to others. I don't think I'm so special that I deserve
> special treatment.
I'm a bit lost here, sorry... In the previous paragraph, you commented
on coercion, and now you are talking about being free to make your own
decision.
> How far up the line I go depends on my own perception of the possible
> future harm. If someone said early in the evening that there was no way
> they would ever eat a slice of pizza with anchovies, then got drunk and
> is now about to eat pizza with anchovies, I'd feel that I should find
> out why they stated earlier they'd never eat such a thing.
I wouldn't even go that far. This truly is a situation where my judgment
doesn't apply, because there is neither a safety or a sanity issue
involved, nor even a consent issue (except for allergies, as you point
out - but absent some specific information, I would work under the
assumption that it wasn't an allergy problem).
> An example from my own life: while I was in the hospital last year, I
> contracted an intestinal infection while hospitalized.
An interesting example, but, in my mind, pretty much irrelevant to our
discussion, for quite a few reasons:
- The actions of medical personnel is governed by well-developed laws.
- The standards for judgment are well developed (as you said yourself,
you would have sued, based on them).
- The standards of safe, sane and consensual don't apply. Medical
standards are very different. For instance, you often can't be
completely safe, but rather have to balance the risks of treatment vs.
the risks of the disease. Like you in your example, patients are
sometimes unable to meaningfully consent.
>> It seems to me that these are two separate arguments. One is "from an
>> ethical standpoint, *nobody* should judge other people's SSC/RACK
>> approach" and the other is "*I* will not judge." That second one is
>> understandable; nobody likes to get involved with other people's messes.
>>
>> The first one is the one I disagree with, for the reasons I outlined
>> above.
>
> I think I must have missed your reasons. I went back through the thread
> and couldn't find a post that seemed to me to outline them.
The reason was that SSC and RACK both were created specifically to allow
some judging, and that the community needs the ability to judge.
> On what grounds would you find it ethical to judge and possibly
> interfere with the actions of others?
Basically, the same grounds that I would apply to judging and possibly
interfering with the actions of others in the vanilla world: protecting
those things we, as a society, decided are worth protecting. In a
vanilla context, that's life, liberty, freedom from bodily harm,
property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.
In the BDSM context, most of the same things are still worth protecting,
except that we specifically allow *consensually* waiving some of these
rights to some extent.
Come to think about it, this is coming full circle. SSC or RACK both are
nothing but allowing the participants to waive some of the standard
rights from the vanilla world. At least SSC requires that some of the
standard rights still remain intact. For instance, SSC pretty clearly
doesn't allow waiving the right to life. Where exactly the line is may
still be subject to some debate, but at least, SSC says "there must be a
line" (I'm not sure if RACK also requires that line. I think it just
says "you need to know what you are getting yourself into". As long as
you know the implications, RACK seems to allow consenting to your own
killing).
Nena and Al
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>I think there are two judgments that are in play. The first is, do you think
>the activity passes as SSC /RACK?
I don't think that these are the right questions. Activites aren't
SSC or non-SSC. A kiss or touch can be non-consensual. Some folks do
stuff that carries lots of risk - if they're aware of the risks and
consent to them, what they're doing is okay with me even if it's way
over my personal line.
>The second is, do you do something if you
>don't think it passes as SSC / RACK?
I'm not going to do something if my partner or I feel the risks are
unacceptable or if we don't both consent to doing it.
>If you want to say I won't pass judgment on SSC / RACK, is it a cop out for not
>being willing to do something if you decided it wasn't SSC / RACK? It is fine
>and dandy to say I don't have all the facts, but at some point in your life you
>may become privy to a situation where you do have all the facts. What do you do
>then?
I think I made that pretty clear. I do think there is a line between
kink and abuse. I don't think that SSC or RACK define where that line
is. There are situations where I would call the cops or personally
intervene to put a stop to what is going on.
If I decided that something you and your partner(s) enjoy is over my
personal line - in my judgment it is not SSC/RACK - but it's not
something I would call the cops or personally intervene over, what am
I going to do about it? If you think it's an okay thing to do, are
you going to stop because I don't approve?
I think that if you and your partner(s) are happy with what you're
doing, it's none of my damned business unless you're inviting me to
join you.
>Do you tap the shoulder of the DM
>and suggest they take a look at a scene?
Yep. It's in the party rules for at least one group here - if you see
folks doing something that bothers you, go talk to a DM.
Nena
Nena and Al
kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>I don't think there is anything wrong with passing judgment on
>*anything*. It is inappropriate to *act* on judgment based on too narrow
>criteria.
Who sets the criteria?
>My own answer relies on SSC. Killing somebody is obviously not safe, and
>arguably not sane.
I've heard of situations where killing someone was okay with me. An
old farmer north of here killed his wife - she was terminally ill and
in a lot of pain and it wasn't going to get any better. They knew the
risks and consented to them. He was convicted of the most minimal
charges they could bring and was given the lightest possible sentence.
I'm totally okay with what he did. I'd do that for Al if we were in
that situation.
>> What would you do if something you enjoy doing fell outside the
>> guidelines?
>
>Can you give a good example? The only examples I could come up with are
>inherently either crimes or at least unethical in the first place, and I
>suspect that this is always the case. I cannot think of something that
>falls outside RACK and is still legal and ethical.
If you're the one who is judging what falls outside of RACK, of course
nothing you do will fall outside. What if someone else is making that
judgment and decides something you're doing is not okay? It doesn't
matter what it is - it could be anything. Do you stop doing that
thing, or do you tell them it's none of their business?
Nena
Nena and Al
kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Your point is very valid; these indeed are concerns (and frequently
>discussed). However, it's besides the point.
It is completely the point.
>My point is that these
>questions are, while still difficult enough, narrower in scope and
>therefore easier to answer than the extremely broad question "whose
>judgment matters?"
Until you've settled the question of who's judgment matters, what are
you going to do with the answers to these other questions?
>The reason was that SSC and RACK both were created specifically to allow
>some judging, and that the community needs the ability to judge.
I disagree with that completely. I think their purpose was to give
folks a framework for understanding that we are each responsible for
our own risk assessment and that consent is an essential element of
ethical kink. The judgments we make based on our understanding of
those acronyms apply to us, not to the kinky world at large.
Nena
Troia
> Nena and Al wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:23:24 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
>>kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>I consider it very valuable to have
>>>some questions, guidelines, that narrow the line very useful. And
>>>because I agree with "allow as much as possible" I subscribe to RACK.
>>
>>What would you do if something you enjoy doing fell outside the
>>guidelines?
>
>
> Can you give a good example? The only examples I could come up with are
> inherently either crimes or at least unethical in the first place, and I
> suspect that this is always the case. I cannot think of something that
> falls outside RACK and is still legal and ethical.
>
There is no act that inherently falls outside of RACK; that's one huge
difference between RACK and SSC, that the latter uses some fuzzy words
to draw a line.
Any act can be brought under RACK simply through the consent and
awareness of the participants.
SSC attempts to draw a line over which some activities are considered
not "Sane" or not "Safe"; both of those are judgement calls that can
define an act as not SSC even if it is consensual.
For example: if I am fully aware of the risks, I can consent to someone
repeatedly whipping me right over my kidneys or on my coccyx. Given the
potential medical complications, such an act is generally not considered
SSC, yet as long as both parties are fully cognizant of the well-known
risks, the act is completely within RACK.
My personal take on it is that I subscribe to SSC for scene play, as it
allows for a margin of safety, but admitting it demands judgement calls
and that at times we specifically make a decision to go outside those
guidelines. RACK, on the other hand, seems to me to be more appropriate
for partners who are known to each other to an extent that boundaries
are more flexible/movable, and based on what is workable over a period
of time. Since my safety is generally in the hands of the Top
controlling the scene, I don't want a relative stranger doing things to
me that I consider insane or inherently unsafe. On the other hand,
within an LTR I would trust someone more familiar with me to skirt the
potentially-insane/potentially-unsafe limits at times, even though I
surely want the end result to be one that does not result in damage.
I fail to see why this debate even exists, however; both SSC and RACK
are merely acronyms for general guidelines, not nearly adequate to
proceed to play by invoking as supposed "standards". I can't see
engaging in edgy BDSM play without good understanding of the partner's
boundaries, and I think assumptions are made when the situation presents
without an opportunity to define boundaries in detail.
In more casual play, I believe both partners need to agree as to the
boundaries and specifics of allowable acts. In ongoing relationships of
some sort, the set of allowable acts tends to be more oriented to what
is off the table rather than what is on it, and more detailed
negotiation seems necessary for just that reason.
As someone who has never safeworded but always establishes one up-front,
I trust my Dom to whip me (for example) far more severely than I would
ever trust an unknown person to do. If nothing else, I know what level
of responsibility he takes for his actions, he has established a history
of paying attention to my responses and of giving due consideration to
avoiding injury to me, and he has a vested interest in my remaining
intact in a way that a stranger (who walks away after a scene and may
never encounter me again) is unlikely to have.
In the course of over 30 years of BDSM, I think I have never used ether
term in pre-encounter negotiations, as I usually negotiate in specific,
starting with whether this is an encounter based on what is on the table
or off it. From there, details are set; in an LTR, those details
evolve over time as I come to be comfortable with trusting the Top to
explore new areas without specific pre-consent beyond the
almost-contractual basis of my being their ongoing play partner, sub or
slave.
-- Troia
Troia
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 02:17:15 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think there is anything wrong with passing judgment on
>>*anything*. It is inappropriate to *act* on judgment based on too narrow
>>criteria.
>
>
> Who sets the criteria?
Individual interpretation. It's very clear that there are different
standards in this group regarding what constitutes "abuse"; therefore
it's likely that some would act in certain situations while others would
not.
We all ultimately have to answer to ourselves, to the question "Did I do
the right thing?" by choosing to intervene or not.
Case in point: is it appropriate to intervene in a situation where we
observe physical abuse of a partner with our neighbors? Some people
consider that partners have a right to do whatever they do to each
other, as a private matter; others draw a line where they interpret
certain behavior as "abuse", and then decide whether intervention is the
moral thing to do or not.
>
>
>>My own answer relies on SSC. Killing somebody is obviously not safe, and
>>arguably not sane.
>
>
> I've heard of situations where killing someone was okay with me. An
> old farmer north of here killed his wife - she was terminally ill and
> in a lot of pain and it wasn't going to get any better. They knew the
> risks and consented to them. He was convicted of the most minimal
> charges they could bring and was given the lightest possible sentence.
> I'm totally okay with what he did. I'd do that for Al if we were in
> that situation.
Individuals and society as a whole make a judgement here. If your
decision falls outside "acceptable" in that judgement, you go to jail.
That has to be one of the risks you evaluate in choosing to engage in
such behavior.
...
-- Troia
Cheeky Girl
What happens when the abuse is not physical but emotional? If you push
someone to far on the emotional side, it isn't "safe" but it also isn't
something that most likely would be seen by the casual observer. How do
you judge that and step in if needed?
CG
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
>
> What happens when the abuse is not physical but emotional? If you push
> someone to far on the emotional side, it isn't "safe" but it also isn't
> something that most likely would be seen by the casual observer. How do
> you judge that and step in if needed?
I think this is a different problem domain. Basically, if you don't see
evidence of something going on, the decision whether to judge or not
doesn't even kick in in the first place.
If you have no idea that the bank you are walking past is being robbed
right this minute, do you call the cops? Do you make an effort to even
find out of the bank you are walking past is being robbed?
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com)
> If I decided that something you and your partner(s) enjoy is over my
> personal line - in my judgment it is not SSC/RACK -
Maybe that is where our difference lies? I think that "over my personal
line" is independent of "is not SSC/RACK". I see tons of stuff that's
over my personal line, but SSC/RACK tells me that it's still OK.
Cutting, for instance. I don't like it, I tend to find it too extreme,
but I still know it's not fundamentally unsafe. Cutting done under
unhygienic conditions, now that's a different story. It is SSC that
tells me "OK, set aside my personal preference, and try to be as
objective as I can, and identify the specific problem that makes the
activity unsafe." Yes, there is still judgment involved, but it's a
narrower judgment.
On the other hand, I also occasionally see play that I perceive as "fun"
but that is still unsafe (and the players aren't always aware of the
unsafety) - certain types of suspension, for instance. That's also an
area where I have enough expertise to often make the judgment.
That's when it can be time for an intervention.
For that matter, that cuts both ways. I engage in edge play quite a bit
myself (Japanese rope bondage. It's actually one of the most dangerous
activities in BDSM) and I *want* input from people who see dangerous
mistakes I may be making. The only restriction I have here is that the
issue has to be specific. Don't tell me "that looks unsafe" but rather
"this rope may pinch a nerve" or "this rope may slip and choke your
bottom before you can take her down".
M. Shirley Chong
>>I tolerate a fair amount of what others would probably perceive as
>>coercion. So long as there is some way for the person about to be acted
>>upon to back out, even if backing out comes with an emotional price,
>>then they do have the ability to say no. If there's coercion, it becomes
>>a matter of the coerced person's priorities and I don't think I have the
>>right to decide for the vast majority of other adults what their
>>priorities should be. I may not agree with their priorities but they
>>probably don't agree with my priorities either.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> I'm assuming that you are not talking about consensual non-consent here?
> That would be OK, of course.
I think the preface of "consensual" says it all.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> Otherwise, here I fundamentally disagree. Coercion means non-consent,
> period. For some very mild forms of coercion, there may be a gray zone,
> but other than that, I'd say that this is much more clear-cut than the
> questions of "safe" and "sane".
Coercion means a greater amount of pressure being brought to bear on
the victim. I certainly agree that coercion in the form of a gun
being pointed at someone's head while they are told "say and do this
on videotape or you die" is clearly not acceptable. But there's a
huge amount of coercion that falls into a large grey area and the
vast majority of it is emotional.
For example, there's the hoary old "if you really love me, you'll
agree to do X" with the unspoken corollary of "and if you don't
agree to do X you don't love me." If the victim's desire to appear
loving is greater than their desire to avoid the behaviour in
question, then to me that's a case of priorities. It's up to the
victim to decide what their own priorities are, not me.
Another example would be along the lines of "you aren't really a
submissive if you refuse to do X." Again, this is a matter of the
victim's priorities--do they want to appear to be a real submissive
or do they want to avoid the behaviour?
Another form of coercion is "if you don't let me do X, this
relationship is over." That carries a hefty price tag but again, it
comes down to the victim's priorities. Who am I to say whether it is
more important to keep the relationship or to avoid whatever
behaviour is under discussion? My preferences don't count, it's the
vitcim's preferences that matter.
Yet another form of coercion can take the form of "I'll be
humiliated in front of our peers if you refuse to do X."
Relationships are all about give and take, in my opinion. There are
often areas where both parties agree are good for both. There are
usually at least a few areas where one party wants it more than the
other party. And sometimes there are one or more areas where one
party desperately wants it and the other party vehemently does not
want it.
For instance, what if one party is kinked for bondage, really
desperately wants it and the other party is not simply neutral about
it but actively finds it vile and disgusting? Ideally both parties
sit down and work out the issue with mature, rational conversation.
But sometimes coercion comes into play. If one partner says "I can't
live without bondage and I can't see a future in this relationship
unless you agree to participate" that can be coercive. But if the
other partner then decides to go ahead and participate in bondage, I
don't think the fact that coercion was used negates consent. Yes,
the consent was coerced but there was indeed a choice involved. Only
that person can decide if keeping the relationship is more important
than avoiding bondage.
I wrote:
>>Since I want to be free to make my own decisions, even to make decisions
>>that seem obviously foolish or wrong to other people, I have to extend
>>that same freedom to others. I don't think I'm so special that I deserve
>>special treatment.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> I'm a bit lost here, sorry... In the previous paragraph, you commented
> on coercion, and now you are talking about being free to make your own
> decision.
I don't see a contradiction. It would be *best* if no one ever tried
to coerce someone else into doing anything. The vast majority of
coercion comes with an emotional pricetag (rather than immediate
threats of injury or death) and if one is willing to pay that price,
who am I to say that it is the wrong decision? It may seem to me
that the other person is making a bad decision but that should be up
to them.
For instance, I think it's pretty foolish to let anyone take nude
pictures or naughty video if you're not prepared to deal with the
consequences should the material come to light later on in life. I'm
sure that Dr Laura, Vanessa Williams and Cameron Diaz (to name just
three of many) all wish they'd made a different decision about
allowing nude pix. But I don't think they should have been prevented
from making that decision (and my sympathy for them is quite limited).
A different example--when I was in my twenties, I had a friend who
was in love with a guy who was not the faithful sort. I knew he'd
never been faithful to any of his previous girlfriends and my friend
knew that. She knew that he'd cheated on her at least twice as well
and it hurt her terribly each time she found out. She wanted to
marry him and she believed him when he told her he would never cheat
on her again. I thought she was an idjit to believe him. But it was
her life and when the minister got to the part in the service where
he asks anyone to stand who has reason for the couple not to marry,
I didn't stir out of my seat. Wasn't even tempted. Did I think he
was going to cheat on her again? OF COURSE! Did I think she was a
fool to believe he wouldn't? OF COURSE! But I still think she was
free to make a foolish decision (yes, he did cheat on her many times
after they were married).
Freedom to make decisions doesn't mean guaranteed freedom from the
consequences of those decisions. Life just doesn't work that way.
You think you're in love or you think your partner knew how to tie
knots or you think you can handle a certain number of drinks without
being affected and you find out you were wrong. You don't want the
bad consequences but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. And even
if your partner said "if you really trust me, you'll let me take
these pictures. I promise no one else will ever see them" or "a real
submissive would trust me without questioning me all the time" or
"you didn't finish your penalty shots, you're such a stick in the
mud" doesn't mean you have gotten a free pass not to suffer from
your decision.
I wrote:
>>How far up the line I go depends on my own perception of the possible
>>future harm. If someone said early in the evening that there was no way
>>they would ever eat a slice of pizza with anchovies, then got drunk and
>>is now about to eat pizza with anchovies, I'd feel that I should find
>>out why they stated earlier they'd never eat such a thing.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> I wouldn't even go that far. This truly is a situation where my judgment
> doesn't apply, because there is neither a safety or a sanity issue
> involved, nor even a consent issue (except for allergies, as you point
> out - but absent some specific information, I would work under the
> assumption that it wasn't an allergy problem).
Perhaps because I have had a couple brushes with anaphylactic shock
(in my mother and myself), I'm always a bit concerned about it. And
if someone is obviously very inebriated, I'd want to make sure that
their change of mind wasn't likely to end up with panic calls for
medical assistance. If only because such calls tend to be such a
nuisance for everyone present and not just the victim.
There's a reason why in most states a person is obviously drunk is
considered not capable of giving meaningful consent. It's because
their judgment is impaired.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> An interesting example, but, in my mind, pretty much irrelevant to our
> discussion, for quite a few reasons:
>
> - The actions of medical personnel is governed by well-developed laws.
>
> - The standards for judgment are well developed (as you said yourself,
> you would have sued, based on them).
I was trying to demonstrate how a certain situation (the giving a
particular medication) may or may not be within the patient's
ability to consent, depending on the patient's condition. A patient
who is heavily drugged and known to be having hallucinations is not
capable of any sort of meaningful consent. On the other hand, an
otherwise healthy person with an infection who is not heavily
drugged and not mentally incapacitated *is* capable of meaningful
consent.
In other words, I was trying to illustrate that a single behaviour
cannot be judged outside of context.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
>>>It seems to me that these are two separate arguments. One is "from an
>>>ethical standpoint, *nobody* should judge other people's SSC/RACK
>>>approach" and the other is "*I* will not judge." That second one is
>>>understandable; nobody likes to get involved with other people's messes.
>>>
>>>The first one is the one I disagree with, for the reasons I outlined
>>>above.
I wrote:
>>I think I must have missed your reasons. I went back through the thread
>>and couldn't find a post that seemed to me to outline them.
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> The reason was that SSC and RACK both were created specifically to allow
> some judging, and that the community needs the ability to judge.
I think we both agree that a person must be mentally competent in
order to give any kind of meaningful consent. But I think we
disagree about whose standards should be used if the participants
are mentally competent.
I wrote:
>>On what grounds would you find it ethical to judge and possibly
>>interfere with the actions of others?
Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) wrote:
> Basically, the same grounds that I would apply to judging and possibly
> interfering with the actions of others in the vanilla world: protecting
> those things we, as a society, decided are worth protecting. In a
> vanilla context, that's life, liberty, freedom from bodily harm,
> property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.
And yet I don't see a societal consensus on any of those issues.
Life--does that mean doing everything possible to prolong life, even
if the patient is brain dead? What about cases of terminal illness
involving great pain?
Liberty--I don't see any disagreement in our society that people who
commit certain types of crime should be imprisoned. But there's a
huge grey area where victimless crimes are concerned. Should someone
be imprisoned as a drug dealer if they never had possession of
either the drugs or the money? And yet there's a guy in the federal
system who was convicted of precisely that--he smoked a joint that a
friend of a friend grew and then offered to put the grower in touch
with someone who was looking for good pot for resale purposes. He
never had possession of more than a few grams of pot and he never
paid nor received payment for marijuana. When he was arrested, there
was no marijuana found on him or on his property. There's a great
deal of disagreement whether this guy should be in jail!
Freedom from bodily harm--does that mean boxing isn't legal? Isn't
deliberately bashing someone else about the head and upper body
supposed to hurt them? How about NASCAR racing? How about playing
football? I don't see any consensus that people shouldn't be allowed
to go out and deliberately break their own arms, which is good
because that's exactly what happens to rodeo bull riders every time
the chute opens. Bodily harm is either inherent or so likely as to
be almost a certainty in many activities that have social sanction.
And yet, spanking someone with a wooden spoon, an activity far less
likely to result in bodily harm than many sports, is illegal in some
states.
Property rights--should my neighbor have unrestricted rights to do
with his property as he chooses? What if he decides to put in a hog
confinement operation that will slash the value of my property by
95%? And if my neighbor did put in a hog confinement operation, my
propery would then be worth much less than the remaining mortgage on
it--should my bank demand that I pay up the difference?
Freedom of speech--interesting you should bring that up. Other than
the obvious restrictions along the lines of not crying fire in a
crowded theatre, we've had debates (endless debates <eyes rolling>)
on SSBB as to whether it is treasonable to criticize the current
shrub in chief in a time of war.
Freedom of religion--yet another sticky issue. It's easy to be all
for freedom of religion when that religion doesn't involve anything
squicky to most people. But how about religious rites that involve
chopping the head off a living chicken and then eviscerating it in a
prescribed manner to read omens from the entrails? How about a
religion which requires it's adherents to do something that would
seem to be in contradiction to one of the other rights you cite,
like the right to live? If someone believes that their deity or
deities of choice require they commit suicide at a certain time or
if a certain thing happens, do they still enjoy freedom of religion?
> Come to think about it, this is coming full circle. SSC or RACK both are
> nothing but allowing the participants to waive some of the standard
> rights from the vanilla world. At least SSC requires that some of the
> standard rights still remain intact. For instance, SSC pretty clearly
> doesn't allow waiving the right to life. Where exactly the line is may
> still be subject to some debate, but at least, SSC says "there must be a
> line"
But my question is, who should draw that line? And until the
question of who should draw the line is settled, then there's no
point in drawing the line itself.
Shirley
M. Shirley Chong
> Maybe that is where our difference lies? I think that "over my personal
> line" is independent of "is not SSC/RACK". I see tons of stuff that's
> over my personal line, but SSC/RACK tells me that it's still OK.
> Cutting, for instance. I don't like it, I tend to find it too extreme,
> but I still know it's not fundamentally unsafe. Cutting done under
> unhygienic conditions, now that's a different story.
Is it? Hygienic is not a yes-or-no condition, it's a relative
condition. Hygienic enough to hike through safely is not hygeinic
enough to perform surgery.
As a diabetic who has had two bouts with necrotizing fasciitis, I'm
real concerned about hygeinic. Having significant percentages of
your body chopped off to save your life tends to raise your
consciousness that way.
Diabetes educators teach that when an insulin injection is given,
the area of the injection site should be wiped with an alcohol swab,
the top of the vial of insulin wiped with a second swab, insulin
should not be re-injected into the vial and syringes should not be
re-used.
And then there's this big pool of diabetics who violate one or all
of the above conditions.
I don't use alcohol wipes. I didn't stop using them without doing
some research, though. I found a study that looked at the results of
kids at a camp specifically for kids with diabetes. Those kids swam
in a lake, hiked in the woods, took part in all sorts of typical
kids at camp activities. When they had to test or inject, most of
them just did it. They didn't clean off their skin. They'd get out
of the lake and inject into an arm dripping with lake water. They'd
inject with muddy hands into visibly dirty skin. And not one single
one of those kids suffered an infection at the injection site. From
which I concluded that as an adult who doesn't get even a tenth as
filthy as I did when I was a kid at camp, so long as I'm in good
health, dispensing with the alcohol swabs is acceptably within my
personal safety vs risk benefit analysis.
When I draw up my insulin, I almost always draw in a bubble of air.
Probably wouldn't kill me to inject a bubble but that bubble
displaces a considerable and fairly unquantifiable amount of
insulin, so I want to get rid of bubbles. The diabetes educator
taught me to draw up a few more units than necessary and then squirt
out the excess in order to eliminate the bubble. That worked great
in the hospital where I had access to unlimited amounts of insulin.
If I went through a vial too quickly, they just broke out another
vial. But now that I'm at home, Medicaid will only pay for a certain
amount of insulin per month. The insulins that i'm on come only in
one quantity per vial, I can't buy a partial vial. One vial of
insulin is more than one third of my monthly income, so buying more
insulin on my own is not an option (not if I want to also have heat,
electricity and food). So I do what many other diabetics do--I tap
the bubble up to the top of the syringe and re-inject the excess
insulin and the buttle back into the vial. I can't waste insulin
squirting it into the air as I did in the hospital because if I run
out one month, I can't get more until the next month. Without
insulin, I'll die.
Syringes? Mostly I don't re-use them but if I go out and am out
later than I thought I'd be, I re-use the syringe. I know diabetics
who routinely re-use syringes until the needles are too blunt to
penetrate skin. I know a diabetic who says that the perfect needle
is between it's tenth and twentieth re-use!
So whose standards of hygeine should I be using? Those of a diabetes
educator or those of an average diabetic? And who should have the
right to tell me I must use alcohol swabs (which Medicaid doesn't
cover)?
Likewise, how hygeinic is safe enough for cuttings? And by whose
standards? I bet a surgical nurse's standards for hygeinic
conditions would vary greatly from those of a play party. So who
decides how hygeinic conditions should be in a scene between two
consenting adults?
> It is SSC that
> tells me "OK, set aside my personal preference, and try to be as
> objective as I can, and identify the specific problem that makes the
> activity unsafe." Yes, there is still judgment involved, but it's a
> narrower judgment.
>
> On the other hand, I also occasionally see play that I perceive as "fun"
> but that is still unsafe (and the players aren't always aware of the
> unsafety) - certain types of suspension, for instance. That's also an
> area where I have enough expertise to often make the judgment.
And if your advice is rejected? Should you have the right to make
them refrain from what you judge to be unacceptably unsafe?
> That's when it can be time for an intervention.
>
> For that matter, that cuts both ways. I engage in edge play quite a bit
> myself (Japanese rope bondage. It's actually one of the most dangerous
> activities in BDSM) and I *want* input from people who see dangerous
> mistakes I may be making. The only restriction I have here is that the
> issue has to be specific. Don't tell me "that looks unsafe" but rather
> "this rope may pinch a nerve" or "this rope may slip and choke your
> bottom before you can take her down".
So if I say "that looks like it could slip and choke your bottom"
but you are sure it won't, should I have the right to say "you can't
do that anyway."?
Shirley
Nena and Al
<troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>SSC attempts to draw a line over which some activities are considered
>not "Sane" or not "Safe"; both of those are judgement calls that can
>define an act as not SSC even if it is consensual.
The guy who came up with SSC - slave david stein - didn't intended it
to be used that way. If you search Google groups for a thread in this
newsgroup entitiled "Laura A's SSC "rant"", you'll find his whole
post, but here's a snipet -
"Nowadays, i've come to feel that the phrase often does more harm than
good. Instead of prompting people to think about limits, it is used
as an excuse to *stop* thinking and to follow a party line. Instead
of provoking useful discussions about the hard cases and gray areas
where it's difficult to draw distinctions between "safe" and "unsafe,"
"sane" and "crazy," and even "consensual" and "coerced," the elevation
of the SSC slogan into a mantra and a quasi-religious imprimatur has
promoted an Us vs. Them attitude that pits one segment of the
community against another. "
Nena
Nena and Al
<troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>Case in point: is it appropriate to intervene in a situation where we
>observe physical abuse of a partner with our neighbors?
A more relevant case in point would be is it appropriate to intervene
in a situation where the neighbors are doing something that they're
enjoying but that seems awfully risky?
I don't know that there's actually much disagreement here. In my
neighbor scenario, I suspect a lot of us would talk to them about it,
maybe even try to talk them out of it depending on what it is. In
yours, I suspect a lot of us would call the authorities.
I think we're really talking about different things. Whether we
subscribe to SSC, RACK, something else or none of them, we each make
our own decisions about when and how much to intervene, whether it's
asking questions and offering advice or calling the cops. I've come
across an unfortunate number of people in the kinky world for whom
doing something means talking about the situation to anyone who'll
listen. They tell about the awful thing that they heard X did, or saw
X do, or even did with X themselves but decided in retrospect was over
the line. Omigawd, isn't it shocking, someone should do something,
blah, blah, blah... Outside of philosophical and meta discussions and
personal ads, these are the only folks I hear really talking about
SSC/RACK/etc. It's a guise for gossip, a way to feed their need for
drama.
Which brings us back to what I think was the original argument - I
don't think that you can tell much about a person by which term they
use.
Nena
Troia
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:35:29 -0700, Troia
> <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SSC attempts to draw a line over which some activities are considered
>>not "Sane" or not "Safe"; both of those are judgement calls that can
>>define an act as not SSC even if it is consensual.
>
>
> The guy who came up with SSC - slave david stein - didn't intended it
> to be used that way. If you search Google groups for a thread in this
> newsgroup entitiled "Laura A's SSC "rant"", you'll find his whole
> post, but here's a snipet -
A valid point -- you distinguish between original intent and how it may
be used these days -- and I agree with your comments that it can amount
to no more than a slogan or an excuse, a way to not-think.
I have never (in over 30 years) used either term in negotiations, but I
have to say that the concepts have always been present; I do more
detailed negotiations than some people, too, and probably always have
although I didn't put as much off-the-table in the past as I do now,
because some edgier practices have become more common. (My goodness,
anal play and minor humiliation play were both generally considered
pretty extreme back then; nowadays, anal is almost considered vanilla.
Even ~18 years ago, when I last did the type of heavy-duty
negotiations I did last year, anal was still a "you're really OK with
doing that?" thing while nowadays it seems to be a normal assumption.
And this from guys who didn't mind demanding service along with sex!
<g>) (I stopped doing service back when I realized that I no longer
aspired to be a "total woman" type and just would prefer to sleep in on
Saturday.)
My big issue in all this is not really SSC/RACK but the absence of
negotiations, for which I DO place the onus on the Dom, and also the
tendency of some (lesser, IMO) Doms to place a burden on the sub to
initiate the discussion if it happens at all, and/or to play on the
desire of subs to "please" by discouraging them from drawing and
defining their hard limits.
The last time I negotiated in depth (last year) I drew a line at bondage
for the first encounter, and he came back & said "If you want the
experience you want, you're going to have to give me that one and trust
my judgement in it", and in fact that's what I did -- I stepped back
from the boundary, and in the end he didn't use it anyway but I could
see, from pre-encounter discussions, that he did in fact have some
common sense about it and was thinking of something light & safe enough
to do with a stranger. He spent time getting to know me, in the
intimate sense, which is damned important for a sub as we fundamentally
need to be "played" and that takes knowledge of our triggers & such, not
just "do what I say because I'm a Dom". OK, in this case, he's so good
at it that he's still very successfully fucking my body and my mind
today; I got lucky. <g>
But bottom line, I would not have gone into it without the negotiations
and the ID'ing, same as has served me for 30+ years. I don't care if
one uses SSC/RACK as a jumping-off point or has never heard of either
term; the point is to NEGOTIATE and play safe. For me, that means both
parties knowing what they've gotten into, where the limits are. It's
far more important, of course, in private encounters than in public play
where there are others to intervene and usually "house rules" about safety.
The further point is that if someone wants to "do some stuff", they have
as much a right to as someone has a right to fuck someone they pick up
in a bar (which I personally consider risky behavior.) On the other
hand, if I'm out on the street and I see a guy haul off and smack the
woman he's with, damned right I am likely to intervene in some way
(unless she looks up at him and says "Thank you", but definitely
intervene if she's expressing distress.) Similarly, when I meet up
with subs who think that being a sub means doing whatever they are told
to do, without question, I'm going to take it on myself to "enlighten"
them even if it is presumptuous. If I know someone who is being
demeaned in their relationship, I'm may well intervene to say "You don't
really have to take this as your self-image, you can get out of this and
feel good about yourself again." If I see someone being smacked around
at home, who doesn't know she doesn't have to put up with it, and can't
find the strength or understanding to escape it, yes I may call the
authorities (with which Shirley obviously seems to disagree) and no, I
don't think that it's up to them completely to find the strength to
extricate themselves, even though I did so ~35 years ago; I just know
too many women who are held emotionally captive to the point of
self-destruction, and I feel an obligation to at least say "There are
other ways to be" when I so often find that they can't conceive of it.
(They usually go back to the abuser a bunch of times before breaking
away, anyway.)
On the BDSM side, I feel more obligation probably just due to my years
of experience, even though I haven't been an "owned sub", as it were,
before. (That concept, too, is something that is more prevalent in more
recent years, but I think I'm adjusting finally.) The fact is that I've
been playing for a long time and I know a lot about the potential
disasters, much more than most people do, and I take my responsibility
the same as I would with a young woman who thinks it's a good idea to go
home with a cute guy they meet at a bar. They can then tell me to take
a hike if the advice or comment is considered intrusive, presumptuous,
or simply none of my damned business.
Sorry for the rant. That's how it works for me; YMMV, and I do what I
feel I have to in order to sleep at night.
(Well, that is ... when someone is not keeping me awake.)
-- Troia
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
On 2006-04-14, Chains and Freedom (candf at kkeane dot com) <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> Nena and Al wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:23:24 -0700, "Chains and Freedom (candf at
>> kkeane dot com)" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> Even with all
>>> the fuzziness it still helps, because it replace the question "is it
>>> appropriate to impose my judgment" with the much smaller questions of
>>> "is it safe?" "is it sane?" and "is it consensual?"
>> The thing you think makes these terms valuable is the same thing that
>> I think makes them a problem. We get right into passing judgment
>> without dealing with the question of whether it is appropriate to do
>> so.
>> That's not what I'm saying at all. "Allow as much as possible"
>> implies that we've got some control over people's private activities.
>> We don't.
> Of course we do. Otherwise, we couldn't condemn Armin Meives, the man
> who *consensually* killed and ate another man he found on the Internet.
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/09/germany.cannibal.trial.ap/index.html
>> Then there's that question again of who decides what's going too far.
>> I don't think I'm qualified to decide that for anyone but me.
> Same example. We could of course argue that because it was consensual
> and happened in private, we should not pass judgment. If that's what you
> mean, we have a fundamental disagreement.
> If that's not what you mean, then could you clarify?
> My own answer relies on SSC. Killing somebody is obviously not safe, and
> arguably not sane.
I don't agree. When I first learned about SSC, yea ghods, however many years
ago that was, it was presented as something like "safe enough for the two people
concerned, sane enough for the two people concerned, consentual enough for the
two people concerned". As far as I know, it was never designed to be used in
the way you are trying to use it at all. In fact, I have heard that David
Stein wishes he had never used the phrase in the pamphlet for GMSMA.
stephanie
--
Stephanie Moore-Fuller smooref...@blackrose.org Mountain View, CA, USA
"It is far better to follow your own dharma, even poorly, than to follow
another's dharma well."
-- from one of the Vedas
Volcano
<smooref...@blackrose.org> wrote:
X-NoArchive=YES
>
>I don't agree. When I first learned about SSC, yea ghods, however many years
>ago that was, it was presented as something like "safe enough for the two people
>concerned, sane enough for the two people concerned, consentual enough for the
>two people concerned".
Only two people? That would be enough to turn me off of SSC right
there.
"Gonads are useful for their purpose, but they are no substitute for brains." - Paul Harvey