The Real Loaded Gun Story
rave...@my-deja.com
You haven't seen me here before. But I have in fact been following this
group for sometime. I was somewhat unpleasantly surprised at how my
story was twisted and changed to suit the poster, and then presented
here.
So, since I was the person who posted the gun play scene report in
another forum,
since I was the one who experienced it, I figured it would only be
right to
re-post the scene report here, to clear up the inaccuracies as
presented by the original poster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS, DO NOT TRY THIS,
THIS ISN'T A HOW TO OR
INSTRUCTIONS, IT'S NOT A SCENE THAT MOST PEOPLE IN
THE LIFESTYLE DO OR
SHOULD DO, IT'S FOR READING PURPOSE ONLY!
Bob is a gun collector, automatic, semi-automatic,
revolvers, and many many
other types rifles. They are kept in a safe place
and away from prying eyes.
Bob and I target shoot and we each own our own
piece which we use for target
shooting. We are both licensed.
We play with guns. This is a scene that took
place approximately one month
before I got pregnant. We haven't played with
guns since.
Gun play isn't anything new to me, it's something
that Bob is very fond of.
Bob will often stick the barrel down my throat and
make me lick it as if I
were performing a blow job on a penis. Sometimes
he simply fucks me with
it. And other times, he fucks with my mind by
blind folding me and then
placing the gun against my forehead and pulling
the trigger.
This scene wasn't anything like the ones before.
This time there was a
bullet in the revolver, and we were going to play
Russian Roulette.
He took me into the bathroom where I stripped and
was ordered to kneel in
the tub. I had no idea what he had in mind. I
placed my arms behind my
back as he placed the steel collar on my neck. I
looked up he was holding
the revolver in his left hand and one bullet in
his right hand. He loaded
the gun. I panicked and started to rise. He
slapped my cheek and told me to
remain in position. To say that I was feeling
scared would be an
under-statement. I panicked, I couldn't think
rationally and I don't think
that anyone could if placed in that position. I
tried to hold my position,
despite my struggles I failed miserabley time and
again. He just stood
above me and watched. I begged and pleaded, I
cried, my face became a
swollen mess of flesh. He knelt in the tub in
front of me and tried to
comfort me. It didn't work, my hysteria grew out
of control.
Eventually he had to physically restrain me, he
placed the hand cuffs on my
wrists and gagged me. He told me that there was no
reason to panic... but he
never, not once told me that everything was going
to be okay. He kept
telling me how much he loves me, and how fragile I
look...
The moment of truth arrived. I was staring at the
barrel. I shut my eyes,
only to hear an order barked at me to open them.
At this point I was no
longer crying, I felt numb and cold. Keeping my
eyes open was difficult
though, and to this day I have no idea how I
managed to keep them that way,
but I did.
Without a warning he pulled the trigger...and I
collapsed. All strength
drained from me, I rested against the cold tiles
in the tub, my eyes shut.
I knew that I survived, I knew that I'm alive and
well, but I felt so
drained, so tired, so exhausted, I was ready to
just disappear. I heard him
laugh and I looked up. He was holding the bullet
in his left hand. "hon,
that was some head fuck!, I pulled the bullet out
when I went to get the
hand cuffs. When I pulled the trigger the bullet
wasn't in the gun".
He removed the cuffs and gag and took me to bed.
He tucked me in and kissed
my forehead. He then left.
Raven
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Das pearl
That's a relationship that sounds pretty fucking dysfunctional to me.
Jackie Patti
immensely.
Das pearl wrote in message
<19990828114258...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
skyd...@kc.net
> SQUICK!!!!!!!!
> That's a relationship that sounds pretty fucking
> dysfunctional to me.
*squick!!!!!* That's a comment that sounds pretty
fucking judgemental to me.
What was dysfunctional about that scene? That her
dom had her headtripped where he wanted her to go?
If it's not your kink, then don't fucking do it. But
if you read about it, keep your lame assed judgements
to yourself.
The gun wasn't loaded. If you have problems with
gunplay, DON"T READ THREADS WHERE IT"S CLEARLY
LABELED that that's what it's about.
Jesus. Idjit.
moonlight - SSB Diplomatic Corps, Kansas City, MO
She runs back down the hallway and through the bedroom door.
She reaches for the pistol kept in the dresser drawer.
Tells the lady in the mirror, he won't do this again.
Cause tonight will be the last time she'll wonder where he's been.
-Garth Brooks, "The Thunder Rolls"
skyd...@kc.net
Technobarbarian
dasp...@aol.comblather (Das pearl) wrote:
>>*squick!!!!!*
[major snippage]
>Is this or is this not a forum to hear all sorts of
opinions about wiiwd?
Perhaps, but what you're missing here is that your
post was almost as rude and counter-productive as the
person who flamed you. I was just looking at the APEX site
(http://www.xroads.com/apex/) and they had a pretty good
way of expressing it.
To paraphase: This is a very diverse group. Sooner or
later you will meet people here whose interests make you
uncomfortable. Because their interests make you
uncomfortable does not make those people wrong. Which is
essentially what you said.
I read raven's post. She sounds like a reasonable
intelligent person, capable of arriving at a sound decision
about which kinks are suitable for her. If her relationship
is dysfunctional it is not apparent from anything I've read
here. Indeed I've found that it's best to assume that the
people you encounter here are reasonable intelligent people
unless and until proven otherwise.
Posts of personal squicks are really not very useful.
Those of us with squicky kinks are very aware of this and
don't need constant reminders. The chourus of squicks tends
to stick the conversation at that level and makes it
difficult to advance the conversation to other areas of the
topic. It also discourages those with squicky kinks from
discussing them here.
Your arguement that the newbies need these statements
of squick to help them decide their own interests is a
major leap of logic. Look at your own case--I'll bet you
haven't needed anyone else to tell you where your interests
focused or what doesn't work for you. The newbies are
reasonable intelligent people too.
Dex, technobarbarian
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Das pearl
>*squick!!!!!* That's a comment that sounds pretty
>fucking judgemental to me.
Yes, it was. Sorry if it offended you, which it apparently did.
>
>What was dysfunctional about that scene? That her
>dom had her headtripped where he wanted her to go?
That she thought someone she loved was playing with her life.
>
>If it's not your kink, then don't fucking do it. But
>if you read about it, keep your lame assed judgements
>to yourself.
It was more of an opinion. Isn't this supposed to be a place where one can
offer an opinion?
>
>The gun wasn't loaded. If you have problems with
>gunplay, DON"T READ THREADS WHERE IT"S CLEARLY
>LABELED that that's what it's about.
I read it because I had read the initial post by Tobie (I think it was Tobie)
and was curious to see what the Real Story was. When I first started to read
this newsgroup over three years ago I came to learn what others did and
thought. I still do. I find it helpful to know that there is a wide range of
people interested in bdsm as well as that there is a wide range of interests. I
find comfort in knowing that there are other people who feel the same way I do
and enlightening that many don't. Has it ever occurred to you that there might
be (probably is) someone reading who thinks that because they have an interest
in some aspect of bdsm that they must, then, accept extreme edge play? Perhaps
those persons might find it good to hear that someone else also finds some
things really troublesome.
>
>Jesus. Idjit.
Das pearl
Perhaps, but what you're missing here is that your
>post was almost as rude and counter-productive as the
>person who flamed you.
I think you are probably right. I wrote off the cuff and sent without giving it
much thought.
> To paraphase: This is a very diverse group. Sooner or
>later you will meet people here whose interests make you
>uncomfortable. Because their interests make you
>uncomfortable does not make those people wrong. Which is
>essentially what you said.
Well, what I said was that it was dsyfunctional. It should be understood that
that is my opinion. I stand by it.
> I read raven's post. She sounds like a reasonable
>intelligent person, capable of arriving at a sound decision
>about which kinks are suitable for her.
She also sounded terrified, to me. What might have been helpful to me to better
understand why she or anyone else would consent to such a potentially abusive
situation is to know how she felt afterwards, what she gained from it, etc...
If her relationship
>is dysfunctional it is not apparent from anything I've read
>here. Indeed I've found that it's best to assume that the
>people you encounter here are reasonable intelligent people
>unless and until proven otherwise.
Oh, Dex. Intelligent people are not immune from dysfunctional or abusive
relationships. Intelligent people should know that the intellect and the heart
are not always in sync. I think Spryal Fox noted somewhere recently that people
in abusive situations seldom see them as such, at least at first. You are so
right about me being rude; I wish I had said to Raven that I considered what
she wrote to be very frightening and I hope she was okay with it.
> Posts of personal squicks are really not very useful.
I think they are, sometimes. I am grateful when someone else has the nerve to
say that something has squicked them that also squicked me. It's a tough crowd
here, you know.
>Those of us with squicky kinks are very aware of this and
>don't need constant reminders. The chourus of squicks tends
>to stick the conversation at that level and makes it
>difficult to advance the conversation to other areas of the
>topic. It also discourages those with squicky kinks from
>discussing them here.
Point taken. However, isn't it just as valid that those without those kinks say
as much? Or are they to be discouraged from discussing here?
> Your arguement that the newbies need these statements
>of squick to help them decide their own interests is a
>major leap of logic. Look at your own case--I'll bet you
>haven't needed anyone else to tell you where your interests
>focused or what doesn't work for you. The newbies are
>reasonable intelligent people too.
Actually, I have learned alot here and quite frankly, there are some things
that I would never have even given another thought if I hadn't encountered some
discussion here. No, I do not need anyone to tell me where my interests lay or
what will work for me.
Someone posted a scene report. I responded and I did so rudely and without
thought for that person. For that I apologize. I really do. But I also felt
compelled to say that it upset me greatly. It still does. Was I being
judgemental? Yes, I suppose I was... I think I need to give this some thought.
If it hadn't been in a bdsm context, would you have found it troubling?
Steve Pope
maybe 8 or 10 years ago. (And nobody complained then...)
S.
Tobie
Das pearl wrote:
> Someone posted a scene report. I responded and I did so rudely and without
> thought for that person. For that I apologize. I really do. But I also felt
> compelled to say that it upset me greatly. It still does. Was I being
> judgemental? Yes, I suppose I was... I think I need to give this some thought.
I've been trying to stay out of this until I get more thoughts
about it. But this part makes me feel the need to speak up.
When Raven said I twisted something, it was incorrect. I didn't
mention her scene report, I mentioned the conversation that
followed it. Let me go get the part of my post that applied to
Raven:
It hit me even harder when
XXXX said that she was really afraid that her husband, lover,
father of her children, was going to kill her. She didn't
mention suspended disbelief, that I saw. She said she thought
he was going to kill her.
That left out a great deal of the terror that she told of. It
was that terror that I responded to. Not the scene report, I
know her husband had unloaded the gun during the scene. I
didn't even comment on the scene on the e-mail list, I didn't
get involved until she spoke of the utter terror of her very
life. The other person I talked of is the one that plays with
loaded guns. The words above twist *nothing* that has happened
on the e mail list.
That's all for now, just wanted to get that straightened up.
Tobie
the red cabbage
Tobie
I would have.
I don't believe in blindly following the "accepted norm" simply
because it's PC.
If the gun was loaded, safety off, pointed at another human,
I'd have said it was a stupid thing to do.
T
trc
-^-^spectrum-^^-
"A Boy and his Hawg." IMO, *the* classic mindfuck tale here. Reposted
fairly recently, so I won't.
The gun he *saw* was a shotgun.
The gun he *felt* was a shotgun, with the barrel concreted. If done
correctly, you can't put a shell in such a piece.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
"A mindfuck is a terrible thing to waste."
Tobie
-^-^spectrum-^^- wrote:
> "A Boy and his Hawg." IMO, *the* classic mindfuck tale here. Reposted
> fairly recently, so I won't.
>
> The gun he *saw* was a shotgun.
>
> The gun he *felt* was a shotgun, with the barrel concreted. If done
> correctly, you can't put a shell in such a piece.
I *like* mind fucks. I wouldn't like *this* one, but that's
just me, but I sure wouldn't have a problem with it being done
to anyone who was emotionally up to it.
T
trc
Jackie Patti
>Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> Remarkably reminiscent of something Clay Bond posted...
>> maybe 8 or 10 years ago. (And nobody complained then...)
>>
>> S.
>
>I would have.
>I don't believe in blindly following the "accepted norm" simply
>because it's PC.
>If the gun was loaded, safety off, pointed at another human,
>I'd have said it was a stupid thing to do.
It had nothing to do with being PC. It had to do with being *HOT*
Clay's story was hot. This story was hot.
Technobarbarian
>Dex wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but what you're missing here is that your
>>post was almost as rude and counter-productive as the
>>person who flamed you.
>
>I think you are probably right. I wrote off the cuff and
sent without giving it
>much thought.
Thank you for your gracious posting. I was very
relieved to see that my comments were taken in the spirit
in which they were intended. I would have taken my comments
to email, but I see our postings here as representing both
ourselves and the many other who share the point of view
being expressed. I wanted to speak to both you and the
people who shared the opinions you were expressing.
I'm talking the time to talk about this subject
because a couple of years ago I managed to be both right
and wrong at the same time on the subject of YKIOK. Several
people took the time to patiently explain things to me
without flamage (a tip of the hat to Midnight Writer, Steve
Davis and others whose names I forget). One of the many
things I love about the people who post here is their
willingness to risk being publicly wrong.
>Oh, Dex. Intelligent people are not immune from
dysfunctional or abusive
>relationships.
Yep, abuse happens in BDSM relationships, just as it
does in vanilla ones. Here on usenet it is usually
difficult (if not impossible) to decern which relationships
are abusive and which aren't. So, what many of us do *for
the purposes of discussion here on usenet* is assume that
consensual relationships aren't abusive unless there is
significant evidence to the contrary. Once you get to know
people on a more personal level it's possible to apply more
sensitive tests. Is anyone being harmed? Is the
relationship positive and healthy? et cetera.
>
>> Posts of personal squicks are really not very
useful.
>
>I think they are, sometimes. I am grateful when someone
else has the nerve to
>say that something has squicked them that also squicked
me. It's a tough crowd
>here, you know.
Yep, this can be a tough crowd. Generally long term
posting anywhere on usenet requires a fairly tough skin.
I still think that the squickiness of a particular kink
is readily apparent to all. Look at what the two people who
dared speak out in favor of gun play said. They're both
reluctant to talk about the subject because of the squick
factor. If there is anywhere on the planet where a person
should be able to talk comfortably about squicky kinks I
think SSBB should be it. Unfortunetly the group has become
too large and the turn over is too high to be able to clue
everyone in on good manners. Witness those who persist in
name calling instead of trying to understand a kink that
they do not share.
>Point taken. However, isn't it just as valid that those
without those kinks say
>as much? Or are they to be discouraged from discussing
here?
What is discouraged is to attack other's consensual
kinks here. And there are exceptions to even this. For
example, if the sub in the clit removal kink had come in
here and asked us what we think it would be acceptable to
tell her that it seems unreasonable to consider this at
this point in her relationship. I would also hope someone
would point her to the Body Modification Ezine, where such
kinks are accepted and where she might be able to contact
others involved in this kink.
The problem is that the attacks on each others kinks
can become endless, with no resolution. I can make sound
logical arguements against even the most bland of my own
kinks. I can make sound logical arguements against anyone's
kinks. I can also make good arguements in favor of almost
any consensual kink. Those discussions just end up going
around in circles and get in the way of reasoned discourse
of the other issues.
For example, for those who want to get excited about
the saftey of gun play, do you know what the leading cause
of death from BDSM practices is? Asphyxiation, with breath
control and bondage being the two leading causes. Is there
anyone here who would care to argue that bondage
is "stupid"? Not me.
>If it hadn't been in a bdsm context, would you have found
it troubling?
Hard to imagine, consensual gun play comes under the
BDSM umbrella, whether the participants are aware of it or
not. If it wasn't consensual, then yes it would bother me
and I'd feel free to say so here.
Again, thanks for the nice thoughtful post.
Xiphias Gladius
> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>> Remarkably reminiscent of something Clay Bond posted...
>> maybe 8 or 10 years ago. (And nobody complained then...)
> I would have.
> I don't believe in blindly following the "accepted norm" simply
> because it's PC.
> If the gun was loaded, safety off, pointed at another human,
> I'd have said it was a stupid thing to do.
Well, the story that was posted here by raven -- and the story that Clay
Bond posted -- did not have loaded guns, safety off pointed at another
human.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Xiphias Gladius
> SQUICK!!!!!!!!
> That's a relationship that sounds pretty fucking dysfunctional to me.
Why?
Sounds like the poster -- *now* -- values the scene.
In my mind, the most important judgement on how sucessful a scene is is
not what the participants feel *during* the scene, but how they feel about
having *done* the scene, later.
If the poster cherishes the memory and is glad zie did this, then I don't
see the problem, myself.
skyd...@kc.net
> Remarkably reminiscent of something Clay Bond posted...
> maybe 8 or 10 years ago. (And nobody complained then...)
Since you mentioned it.....
>On Mon, 18 May 1998 02:59:33 GMT, in soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
>phae...@netcom.com (Phaedrus) wrote:
>
>>Thank you for asking, moonlight.
>>
>>Ahem.
>>
>>I lost my copy of this story at some point, so Steven S. Davis, bless
>>his perverted big heart, sent me a copy of STella's post re-posting
>>Clay's original post.
>>
>>There -were- giants in those days. ;)
>>
>>Though I have a strong hunch Clay would be the first
>>to disagree with me...
>>
------------------------------
--- repost begins ---
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
Subject: A Boy and His Hawg
Summary: classic Clay Bond
I did not write this. I did give it a title, however, since I
just couldn't resist, and the original title of the post,
"Weapons Fetishes?", doesn't seem appropriate.
Back in 1989, when asb was new, Clay Bond wrote, responding to
someone who said:
>well, guns do nothing for me (in any respect ...), but I too have a
thing
>for knives also. Rather smaller ones in my case (since size doesn't
>matter ..)
> [knife-related detail deleted and cold shower taken]
Leaving blades for another time, perhaps, I had a very
intense experience with a single-barrel a few years ago.
This is dangerous, btw, and posted only for historical
reasons (and whatever whoever may get out of it.)
I was on a run with a (gay) MC and I, with three men
I'd known for some time, took off in the late afternoon
for some fun and left the others at the campsite. Jim
and I were on his chopper, Tom and Mike were on Tom's
splittail (hmmm ... Diana, didn't you say you had a thing
for hawgs?) We were off the main track anyway, riding
on a 2-lanne state road, and Jim veered off onto a small
side road (Tom and Mike following.) We hadn't pulled
out of the curve yet when Jim had reached around, grabbed
my hand, and put it on his crotch; I, of course, reached
up underneath his chaps, unzipped his jean , and was
peeling his dick. I rather imagine that something very
like that was going on behind us on Tom's splittail.
A few miles later, Jim pulled off onto a dirt road, and
rather to my surprise, we went through a lot of underbrush
and suddenly ended up in a clearing where there was an
old cabin. I had had no idea that there was any destination
at all, other than the first place secluded enough to
fuck each other's brains out.
To spare you all the gruesome details, some hours later
I ended up hawgtied (sorry, couldn't help myself) over
the two bikes wearing nothing but chaps and several mis-
cellaneous accessories. Tom came out of the cabin and
walked around to where I could see him -- and the shotgun --
took a bottle of oil and greased the barrel while looking
down at me, and handed it over my body to Jim, who was
behind me.
I felt the cold (real cold) steel between the cheeks of
my ass, and he teased me with it for what seemed like
forever before it started to slide up inside me (I was
already um, expanded, shall we say, from well over an
hour in the sling back in the cabin.) Being fucked by
a shotgun was a pretty heavy-duty turnon, to say the very
least, and my balls were about to bust anyway from all
the activity of the last couple of hours.
I was really at the point, finally, that I couldn't take
any more, which was as obvious to them as it was me. Jim
kept telling me to cum, and sliding the barrel in and out
of my butt, and suddenly there was nothing but the sound
of a shotgun being fired, and I spewed all over Jim's leather
seat and saddlebags -- god knows what kept me from having
a heart attack.
I was in a state of shock, and they untied me and helped
me to my feet. I couldn't even whisper, I was so freaked
out. They turned me around, and Mike was standing there
with the gun that had been fired, grinning like a nitwit,
and Jim showed me the gun he'd fucked me with -- it had
been plugged with cement.
As hot as it was -- and it was *HOT* -- I would never do
it again. I woudn't trust my heart not to stop.
--
"If Christ were here no there is one thing he would not be -- a
Christian."
-- Mark Twain
--- repost ends ---
skyd...@kc.net
> In article <19990828215811...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> dasp...@aol.comblather (Das pearl) wrote:
>>Dex wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, but what you're missing here is that your
>>>post was almost as rude and counter-productive as the
>>>person who flamed you.
As the person that flamed daspearl, I can say quite
explicitly that the beginning of it was followed
exactly the way the original was worded for a
reason.
To give hir a way to realize how the other person
would feel when they read that response. I don't
care what the level of experience was of the reader...
the post was clearly labeled, and upon reading, was
proven that there was not any elevated level of
danger from a loaded gun.
That some person's kink squicks someone *else* is fine.
That someone else will call a person's relationship
and kink dysfunctional because it is beyond their
*own* tolerance is *not* fine.
>>I think you are probably right. I wrote off the cuff and
> sent without giving it
>>much thought.
> Thank you for your gracious posting. I was very
> relieved to see that my comments were taken in the spirit
> in which they were intended. I would have taken my comments
> to email, but I see our postings here as representing both
> ourselves and the many other who share the point of view
> being expressed. I wanted to speak to both you and the
> people who shared the opinions you were expressing.
So, because sie wrote "off the cuff" and quite possibly
was harsher than necessary...it's ok because sie was
gracious enough to *say* it?
I don't think so.
The response that sie gave was way over the top.
>>Oh, Dex. Intelligent people are not immune from
> dysfunctional or abusive
>>relationships.
Yes, they can. That was not in evidence in the
scene repost, however. I've engaged in scenes that
were that distrubing, or moreso, and came out if it
none the worse for wear.
What *was* in evidence was that it hit at least one
of your hot buttons and you responded *far* more
strongly than was necessary.
[on posts of squicks not being useful]
>>I think they are, sometimes. I am grateful when someone
> else has the nerve to
>>say that something has squicked them that also squicked
> me. It's a tough crowd
>>here, you know.
Posting squicks are fine. Posting negative, judgemental
comments about a relationship *because* of a squick is
*not* fine.
> I still think that the squickiness of a particular kink
> is readily apparent to all. Look at what the two people who
> dared speak out in favor of gun play said. They're both
> reluctant to talk about the subject because of the squick
> factor.
There have been multiple people that *are* willing to
discuss it, however. I am one, my partner is one, and
from comments made in other threads, it is obvious that
there is a fair quantity of people that *do* play this
way.
I don't agree that there is a readily apperant squick
factor for gun play, considering the number of people
that are stating that they find it hot.
>If there is anywhere on the planet where a person
> should be able to talk comfortably about squicky kinks I
> think SSBB should be it. Unfortunetly the group has become
> too large and the turn over is too high to be able to clue
> everyone in on good manners. Witness those who persist in
> name calling instead of trying to understand a kink that
> they do not share.
This is a problem of most groups, anymore. It will remain
so, unless those that are older and aware of such things
take the time to educate people, either nicely or not so
nicely, that they have violated a groups standards.
Be that as it may, daspearl has been around long enough
to know that YKINOK is not ok.
>>Point taken. However, isn't it just as valid that those
> without those kinks say
>>as much? Or are they to be discouraged from discussing
> here?
No one has said that you cannot post here, or air your
views. What we are saying is that you cannot pass
value judgement on other relationships *because* of your
squicks or their being more intense than you are
comfortable with.
>>If it hadn't been in a bdsm context, would you have found
> it troubling?
Not really relevant. It *was* within a bdsm context. And,
if they were a vanilla couple that liked playing this way,
everyone consenting to it, and just keeping it silent, then
no, I wouldn't have found it troubling.
There are a lot of people out there that do this sort of thing
and *don't* identify as being anything but normal, vanilla
folk. What *we* might class them as is irrelevant.
> Hard to imagine, consensual gun play comes under the
> BDSM umbrella, whether the participants are aware of it or
> not. If it wasn't consensual, then yes it would bother me
> and I'd feel free to say so here.
> Again, thanks for the nice thoughtful post.
As I said...it may come under what we consider kink, but there
are far more people out there that don't identify as kinked
that do this sort of thing. I have a hard time going against
what *they* consider themselves to tell them that they are
kinked and therefore a part of our "community".
skyd...@kc.net
> Moonlight wrote:
>>*squick!!!!!* That's a comment that sounds pretty
>>fucking judgemental to me.
> Yes, it was. Sorry if it offended you, which it apparently did.
Yep. It did. Still does.
>>What was dysfunctional about that scene? That her
>>dom had her headtripped where he wanted her to go?
> That she thought someone she loved was playing with her life.
There are a lot of us, out here, that play with our
lives. Some of us know it, some of us don't. There
are a lot of people that don't understand the underlying
dangers of even "simple" playing like floggings.
Who are you to say that I cannot allow someone to
"play with my life" if I choose to let them?
>>If it's not your kink, then don't fucking do it. But
>>if you read about it, keep your lame assed judgements
>>to yourself.
> It was more of an opinion. Isn't this supposed to be a place where one can
> offer an opinion?
Sure. And that was my opinion of your opinion. How
far do you wish to take this opinion thing?
> I read it because I had read the initial post by Tobie (I think it was Tobie)
> and was curious to see what the Real Story was. When I first started to read
> this newsgroup over three years ago I came to learn what others did and
> thought. I still do. I find it helpful to know that there is a wide range of
> people interested in bdsm as well as that there is a wide range of interests. I
> find comfort in knowing that there are other people who feel the same way I do
> and enlightening that many don't. Has it ever occurred to you that there might
> be (probably is) someone reading who thinks that because they have an interest
> in some aspect of bdsm that they must, then, accept extreme edge play? Perhaps
> those persons might find it good to hear that someone else also finds some
> things really troublesome.
I don't care if they accept it within the context of their
relationship, or not. If it isn't for them, then they should
*NOT* do it.
However.
When they actively post here, they consent to the idea that
they will most likely run across things that they do not
like or agree with. That does not mean that they have the
right to call another's relationship dysfunctional, when there
is absolutely *no* indication that it is.
SSB and ASB before it operates on the idea that all kinks
can be discussed here. What you have done makes it a less
friendly place *for* those people that play on the edge to
come to and talk to find out such things as ways to make
theirk kinks safer.
When a post or thread is *clearly* labeled as to its contents,
and such things have a warning within it, the reader reads
at their own risk. If they squick themselves, then
they have no one to blame but themselves. And they do
*not* have the right to call someone else dysfunctional
because what they read was outside of their "ok" area.
>>Jesus. Idjit.
> Is this or is this not a forum to hear all sorts of opinions about wiiwd?
Yes, it is. It is not a place to hear someone calling
a consentual kink dysfunctional when there is no evidence of
that, however.
victorian squid
Skipping blithely past the landmines to comment on one thing.
> She says freely that she panicked and couldn't think rationally. If she isn't
> thinking rationally is it still consensual?
I would argue that it is. In the broadest sense.
If they've got an ongoing d/s relationship, presumably they have put in
quite a bit of time exploring each other as humans as well as dominant and
submissive. If she did not want this kind of play, ever, and had said so,
forcing it on her -would- be nonconsensual and evidence of dysfunction.
But I don't recall reading anywhere in the scene report that she'd told
him previously that she specifically objected to gunplay, or to edgeplay
in general. These things tend to come up in negotiation.
Personally, I've done quite a few scenes where I was panicked or
terrified. Genuinely so. Where I was crying and afraid and completely
unsure what was going to happen next and if I could handle it. There have
even been a couple where it occurred to me that I might be killed.
I have been crying. I have been hysterical. And actually, these were
places I wanted to be taken. I -wanted- to be brought to tears. I -wanted-
to be terrified. I wanted to be taken past boundaries. If these scenes had
been stopped because I was crying, or panicking, they would have been
stopped way to soon and I would not have reached the kind of catharsis I
was aiming to reach.
> continues. Since she didn't give us any information about their use of
> safewords or not, it sounded to me as if it were, at this point, pretty
> nonconsensual.
And I don't like safewords, neither. Never used one, never will. This is
not said as a boast nor a swagger. I just don't like them. Their presence
or absence in this scene is immaterial, IMO, at least in so far as
deciding whether or not it was consensual.
In a general sense, I really don't see that it was out of line to object
to this scene or this scene report, so I'm not really getting why it is
that people are upset -about the objection-. When you post something on
usenet, that something is up for comment. One must expect that there might
be disagreement.
What I did think was worth objecting to was an observation that the
relationship might be dysfunctional. I just didn't see enough evidence in
that one scene report to give one a good idea of whether that relationship
is functional or not. Obviously we differ on that, and I know you've
apologized for the brusqueness of your reaction, so I'm not trying to beat
a dead horse here. But that part of it sat as badly with me as it did with
a few others.
Love on ya,
v. squid
rave...@my-deja.com
> Sounds like the poster -- *now* -- values the scene.
>
> In my mind, the most important judgement on how sucessful a scene is
is
> not what the participants feel *during* the scene, but how they feel
about
> having *done* the scene, later.
>
> If the poster cherishes the memory and is glad zie did this, then I
don't
> see the problem, myself.
Very good observation <g>.... Lets just say that if I posted about it,
it certainly was a memorable scene. Some voiced that my relationship
is disfunctional, that it's abusive, (hey wasn't there someone that
even suggested that I need to be saved and my relationship should be
reported to the authorities?). Now think a minute, if I were in an
abusive relationship, would my man permit me to speak to others about
the things he does to me? would he not control my words and every move
I make, just to make sure that he doesn't get exposed? Well, just to
give you a basic understanding. I've been with the same man for many
many years, we have one son, and another child on the way (in a few
weeks). Our BDSM focuses allot on fear. We both get off on it.
If the scenarios that my husband was orchestrating did not seem real,
or if there was no risk in our play, it wouldn't seem real, thus no
reason for me to fear.
We play on the edge allot. And the gun play is just another part of
it. It isn't anything unusual for people to knee jerk and to jump to
assumptions when they hear about such extreme play (and in actuality
was it so extreme, since there was no bullet in the first place?), they
allow their own fear, and uncomfortability (is that a word?) to cloud
their response and reaction, I can understand that, and I'm not angry.
I just need to remember that sometimes instead of thinking things thru
logically people react.
Das pearl
Moonlight wrote:
>Das pearl <dasp...@aol.comblather> wrote:
>> Moonlight wrote:
>> Yes, it was. Sorry if it offended you, which it apparently did.
>
>Yep. It did. Still does.
There isn't much more I can do other than apologize that I offended you.
>
>Who are you to say that I cannot allow someone to
>"play with my life" if I choose to let them?
I didn't say that. I didn't even come close to saying that. All I ever said was
that I found it dysfunctional. In retrospect, I should have kept my opinion to
myself, if only to have avoided your rather vicious flame.
>
>>>If it's not your kink, then don't fucking do it. But
>>>if you read about it, keep your lame assed judgements
>>>to yourself.
>
>> It was more of an opinion. Isn't this supposed to be a place where one can
>> offer an opinion?
>
>Sure. And that was my opinion of your opinion. How
>far do you wish to take this opinion thing?
No further than that. It isn't necessary.
>
>> I read it because I had read the initial post by Tobie (I think it was
>Tobie)
>> and was curious to see what the Real Story was.
Has it ever occurred to you that there
>might
>> be (probably is) someone reading who thinks that because they have an
>interest
>> in some aspect of bdsm that they must, then, accept extreme edge play?
>Perhaps
>> those persons might find it good to hear that someone else also finds some
>> things really troublesome.
>
>I don't care if they accept it within the context of their
>relationship, or not. If it isn't for them, then they should
>*NOT* do it.
Right.
>
>However.
>
>When they actively post here, they consent to the idea that
>they will most likely run across things that they do not
>like or agree with. That does not mean that they have the
>right to call another's relationship dysfunctional, when there
>is absolutely *no* indication that it is.
I went back and reread the story. Here are the things that she wrote that
elicited the reaction from me that it did:
" I had no idea what he had in mind. I
placed my arms behind my
back as he placed the steel collar on my neck. I
looked up he was holding
the revolver in his left hand and one bullet in
his right hand. He loaded
the gun. I panicked and started to rise. He
slapped my cheek and told me to
remain in position. To say that I was feeling
scared would be an
under-statement. I panicked, I couldn't think
rationally and I don't think
that anyone could if placed in that position."
She says freely that she panicked and couldn't think rationally. If she isn't
thinking rationally is it still consensual?
"I begged and pleaded, I
cried, my face became a
swollen mess of flesh. He knelt in the tub in
front of me and tried to
comfort me. It didn't work, my hysteria grew out
of control."
Now she tells us she is hysterical. Hysteria indicates to me that the person
experiencing it isn't in a place to make rational decisions. Which she has
already told us she wasn't. Not only that, but her hysteria was out of control.
"Eventually he had to physically restrain me, he
placed the hand cuffs on my
wrists and gagged me. He told me that there was no
reason to panic... but he
never, not once told me that everything was going
to be okay. He kept
telling me how much he loves me, and how fragile I
look..."
So, in spite of her mounting hysteria and her pleading and begging, he
continues. Since she didn't give us any information about their use of
safewords or not, it sounded to me as if it were, at this point, pretty
nonconsensual.
>
>SSB and ASB before it operates on the idea that all kinks
>can be discussed here. What you have done makes it a less
>friendly place *for* those people that play on the edge to
>come to and talk to find out such things as ways to make
>theirk kinks safer.
I hardly think that I, singlehandedly, have made this a less friendly place for
anyone to post. I'd just as soon not go into that - I don't think I need to
point out the irony of your comment.
>
>When a post or thread is *clearly* labeled as to its contents,
>and such things have a warning within it, the reader reads
>at their own risk. If they squick themselves, then
>they have no one to blame but themselves. And they do
>*not* have the right to call someone else dysfunctional
>because what they read was outside of their "ok" area.
I am not blaming anyone. I also tried to explain to you why I read the post. To
be honest, I don't think you are interested in a discussion. I have tried to
explain why I said what I did; I also have said that I made an error when I
made my initial comment without thinking about it more.
>
>>>Jesus. Idjit.
>
>> Is this or is this not a forum to hear all sorts of opinions about wiiwd?
>
>Yes, it is. It is not a place to hear someone calling
>a consentual kink dysfunctional when there is no evidence of
>that, however.
I have given you the reasons I saw it that way.
Spyral Fox
>Well, the story that was posted here by raven -- and the story that Clay
>Bond posted -- did not have loaded guns, safety off pointed at another
>human.
Speaking only for myself, as usual, I have no problem at all with
mindfucks. If someone who has physically unloaded a gun,
checked the chamber, or otherwise totally disenabled the
firearm from being fire-able, and then chooses to use this
harmless weapon to play with a partner who doesn't KNOW it's
dangerous only if used as a club, that's a very different thing
from someone toying with a loaded gun (even if the safety
seems to be on). I consider it to be criminally negligent to
play games with loaded guns; I tend to believe that such guns
will, in the fullness of time, eventually cause a regretable
accident, possibly even a fatal one. I don't consider playing with
loaded guns to be safe or sane. Playing with unloaded ones [1],
especially when their muzzles are stuffed with concrete has
its own risks -- the relationship might not survive if the mind-fuck
really convinces the sub that the top would happily blow the
sub away. But at least they won't kill the sub.
[1] See above -- you need to not just take the clip out, but
make sure the chamber is clear, or you'll end up like that
kid who recently blew up his friend's head.
- - Spyral Fox
--
Owned & Operated by Lord Richard. ("Ani l'dodi...")
SSBB Diplomatic Corps & San Diego Resources,
http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
SSBB Cookbook: http://members.aol.com/ssbbcooks/
Depooty Charter Enforcer (CLG)
John Warren
> I consider it to be criminally negligent to
>play games with loaded guns; I tend to believe that such guns
>will, in the fullness of time, eventually cause a regretable
>accident, possibly even a fatal one.
My basis stance on safety issues is to point out the risks involved and then
stand back. Of course SHOULD something happen with someone using a loaded
piece, I would have no problem appearing as an expert witness for the
proscution testifying that such play is not considered reasonably prudent by
the vast majority of the BDSM community.
--
Diversified Services -- Toys & Books for the Scene
Men...@bdsbbs.com -- www.diversified--services.com
Boston Dungeon Society -- www.bostondungeon.org
phone 617-654-0536 -- telnet bdsbbs.com
skyd...@kc.net
> skyd...@kc.net wrote:
> :Steve Pope <s...@bob.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> :> Remarkably reminiscent of something Clay Bond posted...
> :> maybe 8 or 10 years ago. (And nobody complained then...)
> :
> :Since you mentioned it.....
> 'SCUSE ME! I MENTIONED IT FIRST!
> And thanks, i'd never be able to find it on my kazillion disks...
Sorry! Must have missed seeing that one. :) And you're welcome. :)
rad...@nospam.org
wrote:
> Das pearl <dasp...@aol.comblather> wrote:
> > SQUICK!!!!!!!!
>
> > That's a relationship that sounds pretty fucking
> > dysfunctional to me.
>
> *squick!!!!!* That's a comment that sounds pretty
> fucking judgemental to me.
>
> What was dysfunctional about that scene? That her
> dom had her headtripped where he wanted her to go?
>
> If it's not your kink, then don't fucking do it. But
> if you read about it, keep your lame assed judgements
> to yourself.
>
> The gun wasn't loaded.
The gun was loaded. It was not loaded when the trigger was pulled, but
the fact remains that Bob had a loaded gun in one hand and a self
described panicked and strugling submissive in the other in a confined
space. Revolvers do not have safeties. This is not safe. This cannot
be made safe. This is more than a headtrip.
You may wish to be more reserved in your judgement of such a situation,
but there is more than enough here to raise questions about the actors
and their relationship and such reactions are not the same as YKINOK.
Jim Dugan
Dgrador
<snipping one exceptionally hot mindfuck-scene leading to the end
part:>
>He removed the cuffs and gag and took me to bed.
>He tucked me in and kissed
>my forehead. He then left.
So here we are, 25 posts into this thread by my current count.
Some go 'squick'.
Some go 'hot'.
Some go 'unsafe'.
Some go 'we're all grownups here'.
Exactly *none* go 'My, what shitty aftercare.'
This is a scene-ending that is essentially no different from what I've
observed at playparties. You know, where a scene ends and then the
participants just go off in different directions.Maybe this is okay
for you, but it bothers me enough in public space.
It's not about the gun.
It's the headspace they were in.
In private space.
And alarm bells are going off in my head.
He took her to the edge of reality, pushed her over, and then pulled
her back.What happens next, or is that just supposed to be it...
game over?
Change the scene to one that falls within your own personal limits,
but walks that line. blowing your mind.
S/he knows you're getting right off on it, and gets off on that.
It's blowing hir mind too
All that's left is trust.
And your trust and hir trust are getting real cozy, entwined, fucking
each other into passionate oblivion.......
For me, when it gets that intense, I'm joined. One being with my
partner, turned all turvytopsyoutsidedown.
And it's not going to just separate again that quickly without
consequence.
Now, it could be said that this guy had his own stuff to work through
by himself as a result of pulling it all off. I can see how that could
happen.......... but it can wait awhile longer.
After all, nobody's going to play like this an hour before going to
work. I wouldn't be planning on going anywhere for at least 24 hours.
And I'd keep the connection going for as long as possible, or why go
through all that mindfuck to begin with?
Maybe the guy's naive.
Maybe Raven neglected to include a part of the story.
Maybe he's just a loser.
Maybe it's just fantasy.
dgrAdor
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Vancouver, B.C. Canada
ICQ #24046004
rave...@my-deja.com
mag...@intergate.bc.ca (Dgrador) wrote:
> <snipping one exceptionally hot mindfuck-scene leading to the end
> part:>
>
> >He removed the cuffs and gag and took me to bed.
> >He tucked me in and kissed
> >my forehead. He then left.
>
'My, what shitty aftercare.'
> It's the headspace they were in.
> In private space.
> And alarm bells are going off in my head.
> Maybe the guy's naive.
> Maybe Raven neglected to include a part of the story.
> Maybe he's just a loser.
>
> Maybe it's just fantasy.
<sigh> no wonder I don't do newsgroups.... this just proves why...
You think he's a loser? go have a beer enjoy yourself....I on the other
hand would not call anyone a loser so quickly. How mighty nice of you
to make such a quick judgement call. I can easily say the same about
you for making such a call w/o knowing people.
Naive? interesting.
Fantasy? if you're that afraid of the reality I can understand why you
would assume it's a fantasy.
But to push all that aside, did it ever occur to you that I might be the
one that hates after care? did it ever occur to you that I don't like to
be touched of soothed or even spoken to after the scene is over? did it
ever occur to you that to me after care is no after care at all?
Try and remember that everyone is not the same.
Raven
the one who lives with a loser, naive, abusing sob <g>
NightMist
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:00:32 GMT, rave...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
><snipping one exceptionally hot mindfuck-scene leading to the end
>part:>
>
>>He removed the cuffs and gag and took me to bed.
>>He tucked me in and kissed
>>my forehead. He then left.
>
>So here we are, 25 posts into this thread by my current count.
>
>Some go 'squick'.
>Some go 'hot'.
>Some go 'unsafe'.
>Some go 'we're all grownups here'.
>
>Exactly *none* go 'My, what shitty aftercare.'
>
(snip)
>
>Maybe the guy's naive.
>Maybe Raven neglected to include a part of the story.
>Maybe he's just a loser.
>
>Maybe it's just fantasy.
>
>dgrAdor
I just assumed that Raven didn't go into the aftercare part. Or left
it off for literary intensity.
I just can't imagine a scene that intense ending without any
aftercare.
NightMist
to rply via e-mail add 156 to my initials
M. Shirley Chong
> >He removed the cuffs and gag and took me to bed.
> >He tucked me in and kissed
> >my forehead. He then left.
Dgrador wrote:
> So here we are, 25 posts into this thread by my current count.
>
> Some go 'squick'.
> Some go 'hot'.
> Some go 'unsafe'.
> Some go 'we're all grownups here'.
>
> Exactly *none* go 'My, what shitty aftercare.'
<<<snippage>>>
I don't know Raven, I have no idea whether the scene, as written took place or
was a fantasy (as was suggested later in this same post). I do have a data
point to present.
I have a friend who has been married to the same man for almost 40 years (they
married very young). They are devoted to each other. When one partner dies, I
would not be at all surprised if the other follows very quickly.
But they both need a lot of personal space. To the point where they don't
actually live in the same house, they have two houses built on three acres and
live next door to each other. Doesn't mean they spend a lot of time apart;
they work together and spend a lot of time together, 16 or more hours a day.
But each of them has a pronounced need for privacy and their financial
condition is such that they can afford a housing arrangement that suits them perfectly.
They've shared some grief in their time and their initial reaction is to
retreat--from the world, from their families, from their friends and even from
each other. After that initial recoil is over, then they can come out of their
respective shells.
It works for them and they are extremely happy with each other.
I'm not quite that introverted (which is how they each define themselves) but
very close. I end up feeling rather like an alien being sometimes because I
live in a culture that defines extraversion as the norm.
So. Being tucked in/tucking in, kissed/being kissed, and then left/leaving may
not be everyone's choice for optimal aftercare. But to say that it is "shitty"
is only to say that it wouldn't work--for the person making that judgment.
Surely the only person able to judge the quality of the aftercare would be the
submissive in question? And if she were happy with it, then I would be the
last to say it was the wrong thing to do.
Shirley (one of those weird introverts)
to reply via e-mail remove the trees from my e-mail address
Dgrador
>In article <37cb74c5...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>,
> mag...@intergate.bc.ca (Dgrador) wrote:
>>'My, what shitty aftercare.'
>
>> It's the headspace they were in.
>> In private space.
>> And alarm bells are going off in my head.
>
>> Maybe the guy's naive.
>> Maybe Raven neglected to include a part of the story.
>> Maybe he's just a loser.
>>
>> Maybe it's just fantasy.
>
>
><sigh> no wonder I don't do newsgroups.... this just proves why...
>You think he's a loser? go have a beer enjoy yourself....I on the other
>hand would not call anyone a loser so quickly. How mighty nice of you
>to make such a quick judgement call. I can easily say the same about
>you for making such a call w/o knowing people.
Actually, I was hoping that there was more to the story.
For me,going through an intense scene like that is just the warmup.
I don't understand why anyone else would call it quits at that point.
But that's just me.
>Naive? interesting.
>Fantasy? if you're that afraid of the reality I can understand why you
>would assume it's a fantasy.
The reality is that I like to play over on the far side.
Way over......
>
>But to push all that aside, did it ever occur to you that I might be the
>one that hates after care? did it ever occur to you that I don't like to
>be touched of soothed or even spoken to after the scene is over? did it
>ever occur to you that to me after care is no after care at all?
>
>Try and remember that everyone is not the same.
I'm not judging you. I'm just trying to understand why you prefer to
fly solo in the aftermath of such an experience.
It's a polar opposite to my own wiring, and I would appreciate your
input on this.
rave...@my-deja.com
> Actually, I was hoping that there was more to the story.
Oh okay, so that's why you felt the urge to call my husband naive a
loser and one who is in a fantasy. Cool I get it now.
> I don't understand why anyone else would call it quits at that point.
> But that's just me.
WHy didn't you ask that in the first place? why did you feel this
incredible urge to call me and my husband names? is that how things are
handled in newsgroups?
> The reality is that I like to play over on the far side.
> Way over......
If you say so. I'll have to take your word for it.
> I'm not judging you.
Sure you did
>I'm just trying to understand why you prefer to
> fly solo in the aftermath of such an experience.
Because I'm like that. I'm not a touchy kissy feely kinda gal, I need
to be left alone so that I can "fly" alone, touching and soothing me
afterwards kills the experience for me.
> It's a polar opposite to my own wiring, and I would appreciate your
> input on this.
Well yeah i can see that, but if we were all the same life would be
boring.
Raven
http://www.smartweb.net/~raven
> dgrAdor
> SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Vancouver, B.C. Canada
> ICQ #24046004
>
Dgrador
>> Actually, I was hoping that there was more to the story.
>Oh okay, so that's why you felt the urge to call my husband naive a
>loser and one who is in a fantasy. Cool I get it now.
I felt the urge to respond to your scene as written by you.
And I said maybe.
>> I don't understand why anyone else would call it quits at that point.
>> But that's just me.
>WHy didn't you ask that in the first place? why did you feel this
>incredible urge to call me and my husband names? is that how things are
>handled in newsgroups?
I don't know about *all* newsgroups, and I don't speak for anyone else
here, but I prefer to discuss things.Especially edgy things.
And now there's just you and me left on the floor......care to dance?
>> The reality is that I like to play over on the far side.
>> Way over......
>If you say so. I'll have to take your word for it.
You're asking me to take your word for it. Tit for tit.
>> I'm not judging you.
>Sure you did
I was trying to get to the heart of the matter, pointing out something
that could be discussed about your scene report other than whether it
should even be discussed.
As you the edgeplayer well know, a percentage of bdsmers don't even
want to know that there's infinite possibility out there.
>>I'm just trying to understand why you prefer to
>> fly solo in the aftermath of such an experience.
>Because I'm like that. I'm not a touchy kissy feely kinda gal, I need
>to be left alone so that I can "fly" alone, touching and soothing me
>afterwards kills the experience for me.
>> It's a polar opposite to my own wiring, and I would appreciate your
>> input on this.
>Well yeah i can see that, but if we were all the same life would be
>boring.
Care to elaborate just a little bit?
I admit that things aren't the same for everyone.
I'd just like to know more about this place that you go that is just
so spectacularly___________ that you can't share it with the person
that got you there.
Dgrador
Jackie Patti
<37d219e7...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>...
>>>I'm just trying to understand why you prefer to
>>> fly solo in the aftermath of such an experience.
>
>>Because I'm like that. I'm not a touchy kissy feely kinda gal, I
need
>>to be left alone so that I can "fly" alone, touching and soothing me
>>afterwards kills the experience for me.
>
>>> It's a polar opposite to my own wiring, and I would appreciate
your
>>> input on this.
>
>>Well yeah i can see that, but if we were all the same life would be
>>boring.
>
>Care to elaborate just a little bit?
>I admit that things aren't the same for everyone.
>I'd just like to know more about this place that you go that is just
>so spectacularly___________ that you can't share it with the person
>that got you there.
This just makes me bristle, the way the question is worded.
Where did she say she "can't?" I thought she said she didn't WANT to.
What is there exactly to understand about that?
rave...@my-deja.com
> I don't know about *all* newsgroups, and I don't speak for anyone else
> here, but I prefer to discuss things.Especially edgy things.
Well discuss them, learn how to ask questions in a civilized and a
polite way, you might just get answers.
> And now there's just you and me left on the floor......care to dance?
<smile> why sure, which will it be? my forte is Tango :)
> >> The reality is that I like to play over on the far side.
> >> Way over......
> >If you say so. I'll have to take your word for it.
> You're asking me to take your word for it. Tit for tit.
Actually I haven't asked you anything at all, you're the one asking me
:), so no, not tit for tat, not at all.
>
> >>I'm just trying to understand why you prefer to
> >> fly solo in the aftermath of such an experience.
>
> >Because I'm like that. I'm not a touchy kissy feely kinda gal, I need
> >to be left alone so that I can "fly" alone, touching and soothing me
> >afterwards kills the experience for me.
>
> >> It's a polar opposite to my own wiring, and I would appreciate your
> >> input on this.
>
> >Well yeah i can see that, but if we were all the same life would be
> >boring.
>
> Care to elaborate just a little bit?
> I admit that things aren't the same for everyone.
> I'd just like to know more about this place that you go that is just
> so spectacularly___________ that you can't share it with the person
> that got you there.
First of, you need to learn to read :), I never said I can't. I said
that I need to be left alone. That for me after care is no after care
at all. Being touched and soothed after a scene will destroy the
pleasure that I'm feeling. See, for me it is a bit cliche that the one
that just finished "hurting" me is going to turn around and become the
complete opposite and tell me that "everything is okay, I love you,
yadda yadda yadda", it simply doesn't compute in my brain.
Hope it is clearer now.
Raven
http://www.smartweb.net/~raven
David Weinshenker
> Revolvers do not have safeties. ... This cannot
> be made safe. This is more than a headtrip.
Actually, many modern revolvers have a "transfer bar"
mechanism which requires the trigger to be in the pressed
position while the hammer falls, or the hammer simply strikes
the frame of the gun without hitting the firing-pin.
This is done so that the revolver can be carried safely with
a full cylinder, and will not discharge if, for example, it
falls onto the spur of the hammer, or if one's thumb slips while
cocking it.
Effectively, the "safety is on" at any time that the shooter
does not actually have the trigger depressed. This mechanism
functions independently of the main firing mechanism of the gun.
An uncocked revolver requires a sufficient amount of explicit
"control input" to fire - either a long trigger pull (if of
the double-action variety) or a long pull on the hammer
to cock it for the light "single-action" trigger pull -
that the risk was probably pretty small in this actual case.
The potential of discharge during the time the gun was actually
loaded (from the visible loading to the concealed unloading)
is certainly a safety issue to consider when designing a "mindfuck"
scene around this particular "setup".
-dave w
Monkeygrl
is truely a gun safety issue..and related to the
emotional responses that the thought of "guns"
ignites. A gun.. is something that can not be
neutral in most peoples minds.. it can be
difficult to seperate the things intention from
the thing itself.. The thing itself..is simply a
metal thing... a metal thing that needs several
purposfull manipulations to cause harm. you have
to load it.. you have to make it operable..you
have to aim it..and you have to fire it... yes
accidents happen.. and the stories are rampent..
but it is simply a thing. inert..and neutral..
unless a series of very specific action are
preformed with it..
Ginger
Cherie
rave...@my-deja.com wrote :
(much snipping, to get to the part I was interested in)
>> >Because I'm like that. I'm not a touchy kissy feely kinda gal, I
need
>> >to be left alone so that I can "fly" alone, touching and soothing
me
>> >afterwards kills the experience for me.
Yep, I'm like that too, at least with some of the peopel I play with.
and Dgrador said:
>> I admit that things aren't the same for everyone.
>> I'd just like to know more about this place that you go that is
just
>> so spectacularly___________ that you can't share it with the person
>> that got you there.
For me its not a matter of sharing with my playmate. I've already
done that, while we were playing. We've finished sharing, at least
for awhile. At that point what I need is some time and space to
continue *feeling*, and to begin processing. Having someone in my
personal space (and for me that means if I can touch you, you're too
close), touching, talking, etc., will often ruin things for me. I'll
be focusing on them, and it will pull me out of myself, which is where
I still need to be.
I often go off by myself to have a cigarette and some water. I don't
mind people nearby, I just don't want them too close or trying to talk
to me. Its a very private time for me.
The people I play with understand this, and deal with it. Some of
*them* need aftercare, and they know I'm not in any condition to
supply it, so they get it elsewhere. (There are usually enough people
around watching, etc to supply whatever they need.) They may keep an
eye on me, to make sure I'm ok, but they learn quickly not to intrude
on my space. And that works for us.
I've had people who didn't know me complain to organizers, etc., that
the top I was playing with just "left me alone", and I didn't like the
judgement they were imposing. If it works for the people involved,
then that should be sufficient. I know that if I need traditional
aftercare, I can get it.
Does that make any sense to you?
Fwiw, I'm not this way with everyone I play with. Particularly with
Nightwind, play is much more emotionally involved for me, and I'm ok
with cuddling, etc afterwards (although I still don't feel like I need
it).
Raven:
>I never said I can't. I said
>that I need to be left alone. That for me after care is no after
care
>at all. Being touched and soothed after a scene will destroy the
>pleasure that I'm feeling.
Ugol again. You're not the only one like this Raven. :-)
--
Cherie
"Pushing the threshold to feel alive/ broken open, arms spread wide/
pushing the threshold to feel alive" (Mollie's Revenge: _Threshold_)
jmi...@usit.net
> I've had people who didn't know me complain to organizers, etc., that
> the top I was playing with just "left me alone", and I didn't like the
> judgement they were imposing. If it works for the people involved,
> then that should be sufficient. I know that if I need traditional
> aftercare, I can get it.
I can certainly understand that you don't want other people imposing their
judgment on you or your partner. On the other hand, I thought it was always
appropriate for anyone at a gathering to talk to a DM or an organizer about
a concern or possible problem.
If you don't mind my asking, is your feeling of being judged related to them
asking at all, or to the format of their query/complaint? That is, would
you feel as though you were being judged if someone went to a DM and said
something like, "I don't know So-and-so, but when their scene was finished,
the top just walked away. I've never seen anyone do that before -- is that
usual for them, or is it a problem you need to know about?"
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles (jmi...@usit.net) <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
Loyal Webcrafter: PenUltimate Productions <http://www.worthlink.net/~ysabet>
and SSBB DC <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles/ssbbcorps.html>
Member: SSBB Diplomatic Corps -- East Tennessee
Cherie
jmi...@usit.net
>If you don't mind my asking, is your feeling of being judged related
to them
>asking at all, or to the format of their query/complaint?
It had to do with the complaint. Its wasn't a query. In the
particular example I was talking about, several people complained to
the organizer of the event several days later. They didn't like what
we had done (breast flogging) and complained that it was too extreme
for the event. They didn't like that the top escorted me to a table
(where several of my friends were), made sure I had something to
drink, and then left me alone (other than to come by occasionally to
see that I was ok). They were concerned that it sent the wrong
message to people who new. It came across as very YKINOK. Fwiw, the
organizer knows us, and was able to explain that everything was fine.
He only told us about it after it had been dealt with, in sort of a
sarcastic "look at all the trouble you're causing now <g>" way.
>That is, would
>you feel as though you were being judged if someone went to a DM and
said
>something like, "I don't know So-and-so, but when their scene was
finished,
>the top just walked away. I've never seen anyone do that before --
is that
>usual for them, or is it a problem you need to know about?"
I wouldn't have had a problem with this at all. In this case, the DM
knew us and could have reassured them at the time that everything was
fine. Any time a DM has approached me while I was playing it has been
done as unobtrusively as possible. I wouldn't have a problem being
approached in that way.
Hope that clarifies things!
shining-one{WH}
news:1999090822...@mail.replay.com...
>
> Cherie wrote:
> > It had to do with the complaint. Its wasn't a query. In the
> > particular example I was talking about, several people complained to
> > the organizer of the event several days later. They didn't like what
> > we had done (breast flogging) and complained that it was too extreme
> > for the event. They didn't like that the top escorted me to a table
> > (where several of my friends were), made sure I had something to
> > drink, and then left me alone (other than to come by occasionally to
> > see that I was ok). They were concerned that it sent the wrong
> > message to people who new. It came across as very YKINOK. Fwiw, the
> > organizer knows us, and was able to explain that everything was fine.
> > He only told us about it after it had been dealt with, in sort of a
> > sarcastic "look at all the trouble you're causing now <g>" way.
>
> This is much more of a general question, I suppose. As I don't
> participate in "the scene" (my BDSM activities are all sexual
> play in my home with my partner or just myself), I don't have
> playparty experience.
>
> Specifically in terms of aftercare, would a newcomer really be
> paying that much attention, or would the attention be focused on
> some other "active" scene?
>
> To all those who remember when they were newbies to "the scene",
> what do you remember about the aftercare given? What, if anything,
> did you learn from it?
>
For myself, still being relatively new to public play, i have been (and am)
very interested in the type of aftercare given, particularly after very
intense scenes. i'm happy to say that, for the most part, the aftercare
given has been more than adequate (or at least it would have been for me,
and i'm *big* on snuggles [and water *chuckle] afterwards).
--
shining-one{WH}
property of her beloved Master Whiphand
"Pleasure is sweetest when 'tis paid for by another's pain."
Ovid -- The Art of Love
feel free to reply to shining...@hotmail.com
Janet Hardy
Cherie wrote in message ...
>
They were concerned that it sent the wrong
This is a particular pet peeve of mine. A play party is not, goddammit, a
workshop. If you want me to teach a workshop, ask me and I probably will.
However, I don't expect to pay $15 for the privilege. If I'm paying to go to
a play party, I expect to play, not "set an example."
Verdant
Anonymous
Cherie wrote:
> It had to do with the complaint. Its wasn't a query. In the
> particular example I was talking about, several people complained to
> the organizer of the event several days later. They didn't like what
> we had done (breast flogging) and complained that it was too extreme
> for the event. They didn't like that the top escorted me to a table
> (where several of my friends were), made sure I had something to
> drink, and then left me alone (other than to come by occasionally to
> see that I was ok). They were concerned that it sent the wrong
> message to people who new. It came across as very YKINOK. Fwiw, the
> organizer knows us, and was able to explain that everything was fine.
> He only told us about it after it had been dealt with, in sort of a
> sarcastic "look at all the trouble you're causing now <g>" way.
This is much more of a general question, I suppose. As I don't
participate in "the scene" (my BDSM activities are all sexual
play in my home with my partner or just myself), I don't have
playparty experience.
Specifically in terms of aftercare, would a newcomer really be
paying that much attention, or would the attention be focused on
some other "active" scene?
To all those who remember when they were newbies to "the scene",
what do you remember about the aftercare given? What, if anything,
did you learn from it?
Dr Ivory.
Uninvited free therapy for all.
Sockermom9
>This is a particular pet peeve of mine. A play party is not, goddammit, a
>workshop. If you want me to teach a workshop, ask me and I probably will.
>However, I don't expect to pay $15 for the privilege. If I'm paying to go to
>a play party, I expect to play, not "set an example."
{obligatory flirt] Could you give us an example, please, Janet?
I won't go quite so far, though. When I'm playing, I'll admit I can't much be
bothered with on-lookers. But when I'm on-lookering or DMing, I try to keep an
eye out for people who seem bothered by what they're seeing, and try to, just
socially, ask if there's a problem.
Mostly, this is because I've had DM type problems pointed out to me by
bystanders, but people were so helpful in getting me comfortably situated in
the scene, I want to pass that on.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
mady
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
:::::::::::snipped:::::::::::::
>Specifically in terms of aftercare, would a newcomer really be
>paying that much attention, or would the attention be focused on
>some other "active" scene?
>
>To all those who remember when they were newbies to "the scene",
>what do you remember about the aftercare given? What, if anything,
>did you learn from it?
:::::::::::snipped:::::::::::::
I remember my first time playing in public very well. There was quite
a bit of activity going on around me and every playstation was being
used. I can tell you that I not only remember the aftercare but
consider it just as important to me as the play itself. As someone
very new to public play and very unsure as to how I "compared" to
others, the time the dominant took, the holding me, making sure I was
comfortable, even the insistence that I drink a cup of water..all made
me fee reassured and appreciated. In fact, to have someone such as
that for my first time kind of spoiled me. Since then I have found
few that could compare. Mind you...this was me. What works for me
may not be what works for others.
mady
--
madylarian OCL(OCF)
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all spammers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
SilverOz
mady <madyl...@hobinrood.home.com> wrote:
>comfortable, even the insistence that I drink a cup of water..all made
>me fee reassured and appreciated. In fact, to have someone such as
>that for my first time kind of spoiled me. Since then I have found
>few that could compare. Mind you...this was me. What works for me
>may not be what works for others.
But did you notice what *other* people were getting before you
did your first scene?
Did you see them and think "I hope that happens to me" or did
you just not notice it going on, but instead focussed on the play?
SilverOz
mady
>But did you notice what *other* people were getting before you
>did your first scene?
>Did you see them and think "I hope that happens to me" or did
>you just not notice it going on, but instead focussed on the play?
Nope. I never really noticed what others were doing in regards to
aftercare. In fact, I was not really sure what to expect. When
watching others, I never really focused on the aftercare. I would
usually wander off when the play was over and see what else was going
on or go down to the "social area".
In my particular case, my first public play took place after being
purchased at a dom/sub auction and I was not even thinking about the
aftercare when I was put in a blindfold and cuffs and the cuffs
attached to chains hanging from the ceiling. Since I could still hear
everything that was going on around me, I was just focusing on the
sound of his voice and the various things he was doing to me. And
when he took me down and held me and did what I had described before,
it was all new to me yet it felt perfectly right.
I think that what makes aftercare a bit different for me and others
like me is that I do not have a dedicated or committed partner. I
play with different people and in the case of that first time, he was
a complete stranger to me. I have a feeling that couples who know
each other well know just what their partners need and also know that
they have lots of time to do the aftercare part..that it does not all
have to be done then and there. Myself, I tend to be the "needy" type
who is far less sure of herself than it would outwardly seem so that I
NEED that comforting and assurance. For others it may not be
necessary.
SilverOz
mady <madyl...@hobinrood.home.com> wrote:
>On 9 Sep 1999 05:54:06 GMT, ze...@zip.com.au (SilverOz) wrote:
>
>
>>But did you notice what *other* people were getting before you
>>did your first scene?
>
>>Did you see them and think "I hope that happens to me" or did
>>you just not notice it going on, but instead focussed on the play?
>
>Nope. I never really noticed what others were doing in regards to
>aftercare. In fact, I was not really sure what to expect. When
>watching others, I never really focused on the aftercare. I would
>usually wander off when the play was over and see what else was going
>on or go down to the "social area".
That's what I figured :)
That the idea that people must provide public aftercare "to
reassure the novices" is silly!
>
>I think that what makes aftercare a bit different for me and others
>like me is that I do not have a dedicated or committed partner. I
>play with different people and in the case of that first time, he was
>a complete stranger to me. I have a feeling that couples who know
>each other well know just what their partners need and also know that
>they have lots of time to do the aftercare part..that it does not all
>have to be done then and there. Myself, I tend to be the "needy" type
>who is far less sure of herself than it would outwardly seem so that I
>NEED that comforting and assurance. For others it may not be
>necessary.
Hmm.. I think it's very person dependent. I don't play in
public, but I need aftercare a fair bit - especially if it's b een
any kind of an intense scene. But then I'm a hugslut anyway!
SilverOz
John Warren
>This is a particular pet peeve of mine. A play party is not, goddammit, a
>workshop.
I tend to explode at that. I had someone attempt to take me to task for having
done a waxing fireplay scene at a party and not explaining as I did it how it
was done.
When I PLAY nothing exists but the person I'm playing with. This
simplification of world view is one of the attractions of play for me. I'll be
damned if I'll detract from my own fun (and that of my partners') to carry on a
running commentary.
Classes are where I go to teach and to learn. Play parties are where I do to
PLAY!
Laura Antoniou
<< This is a particular pet peeve of mine. A play party is not, goddammit, a
However, I don't expect to pay $15 for the privilege. If I'm paying to go to
a play party, I expect to play, not "set an example." >>
I agree; as I styarted to drift out of the NY SM club scene and public play
parties, I had already noticeced that I was "toning down" the kinds of play I
was willing to do there. It was strange; I was doing stuff that I was
perfectly comfortable with, had experience with, but I'd be there with my
martial arts pads or a box o'needles or *whatever*, and then I'd think - who's
watching? Who might think that "hey, that lady was punching her bottom; maybe
I'll go home and take a swing at mine!"
And so I'd take out a flogger instead, or put the needles away and take out
the lube to fuck or fist (if that was allowed!) or skip playing all together
for the evening.
Fact is, I don't want to be a playing role model, I don't want to be in a
position where I'm supposed to be teaching anything physical. And it's not just
because of the edge play thing, there's plenty of stuff I do that isn't edgy at
all. It's that I find the mentor/teacher model VERY personal and important, and
I hate the idea that someone might think that watching me is a lesson in
anything but "how Laurie plays".
As far as "aftercare" goes, I never wanted it as a bottom, it was far too
distracting. The first time someone wrapped me in a blanket and tried to make
soothing sounds, I had to struggle not to just snap "I'll be fine!" (Luckily,
I was in service at the time and had the discipline not to do that; I found the
right time to discuss such things later on and make my tendancies known.)
As a top, I conducted myself according to the bottom's needs in that area, and
I've found that the more like me the bottom is, the more I enjoy the
apres-scene resolutions. The "cuddling and praising" thing is only comfortable
for me with people I am already emotionally intimate with, and even then, I
prefer it not happen in a public arena.
I don't remember where/when I said it, but I said once in public that
sometimes I just wanted to be freed from the bondage, kicked out of the room
and told to present myself when I was proper for company. (Grin) That to me is
*part* of the SM experience, a continuation of the "play" into an emotional
realm, into a relationship paradigm where the top expects that the bottom can
and will put themselves back together, where the bottom can feel that nudge of
both abandonment *and* trust.
But the mere idea of doing something like that to a bottom in a public arena
now, in this current atmosphere of SM/Leather, where people immediately go
online and need to discuss what they think they saw and what their opinions on
the relative safety - emotional or otherwise - of a scene was - is just
off-putting. Not scary; I'm just fine with some people, especially novices,
thinking, "shit, she's nuts, I'll never play with her!". I just find the whole
thing kind of annoying.
You want a lesson? Go to a workshop, find a tutor. You want to know why I play
the way I do? Ask me. Otherwise, just give me the space to work in and leave me
alone.
Laurie
=======================================================
The Academy; Tales of the Marketplace, finished 7/5/99. Yay!
And there is no mystery about him, why do you ask?
Elisabeth Anne Riba
:But the mere idea of doing something like that to a bottom in a public arena
:now, in this current atmosphere of SM/Leather, where people immediately go
:online and need to discuss what they think they saw and what their opinions on
:the relative safety - emotional or otherwise - of a scene was - is just
:off-putting. Not scary; I'm just fine with some people, especially novices,
:thinking, "shit, she's nuts, I'll never play with her!". I just find the whole
:thing kind of annoying.
I'd add that it may be a *good* thing for scene folk to be exposed to
edgier scenes. I was once *completely* squicked by a scene I saw at a
playparty. It was hard for me to even go back to the neighboring room to
get my jacket because I couldn't bear to hear it.
However, in hindsight, I view it as a good test of my self-awareness.
Not everyone plays in the same manner or scale that you do. But it's
important to be able to say YKIOK,IJNMK and to be able to count on others
who make such statements, without having to worry at every turn that
supporters may fold at the first hint of controversy.
Many people say they believe in free speech, oppose censorship and the
rest of it, yet on first exposure to material *they* find threatening
will crumple and start making exceptions.
Many people supporting gay rights go far enough to protect the more
"mainstream" while excluding transgendered and leatherfolk. Even the New
York Times said "A just society must offer the same protections to men in
leather and chains as to those who wear Brooks Brothers suits."
Similarly, it can be worrisome when people blandly claim YKIOK,IJNMK
without exposure to things that weren't their kink and challenged their
worldview. It's one thing to support the statement in the abstract, it's
something else to have your senses assaulted (so-to-speak) with the
reality.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
mady
wrote:
:::::::::::::::snipped:::::::::::::
> You want a lesson? Go to a workshop, find a tutor. You want to know why I play
>the way I do? Ask me. Otherwise, just give me the space to work in and leave me
>alone.
Even at workshops one assumes that all parties have a certain level of
maturity. Frankly, no one should have to say "Do not do this at home,
kids, til you know what you are doing". My guess is that someone who
sees something that could be dangerous if not done correctly and goes
right out and tries it just from having seen it done once or twice
(single-tails come to mind)...this is a person who is just plain thick
in the head and would be dangerous in ANY venue, not just wiitwd.
At the same time, it has always kind of bothered me that it's expected
that activities be toned down a bit for the more timid and to
encourage the shy to come out. I have a major problem with the
concept of "lowest common denominator" and that is what that sounds
like. For example, our local support/education group has open play
after the presentations. One such time, I was told to check out the
"really hot" genital play piercing scene. One look into the room
squicked me badly and I left, even though the submissive herself was
all smiles. I can imagine how some newcomer might have been really
scared by that, but it would never have occurred to me to prevent play
such as that. [1]
[1] The only thing we made sure of was that the proper precautions
for prevention of disease and infection were taken (gloves, sterile
needles, alcohol wipes, first aid kit, etc.) and that the table was
covered with something to prevent the surface from being stained or
contaminated.
Janet D. Miles
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm Anonymous wrote:
> Specifically in terms of aftercare, would a newcomer really be
> paying that much attention, or would the attention be focused on
> some other "active" scene?
I suspect it depends on a lot of things, like how big the party is,
whether there are any other scenes going on, who the newcomer is, what
sorts of things attract zir attention, and how comfortable zie is in
general.
> To all those who remember when they were newbies to "the scene",
> what do you remember about the aftercare given? What, if anything,
> did you learn from it?
I should probably note that I attended two playparties before I ever
started actually doing BDSM, so I had no personal experience on which
to base my responses, but that attending those parties was a strong
push in the direction of Wanting To Try It Myself.
First playparty I attended, fairly large group, sort of open (that is,
not "invitation only"):
First scene was a demonstration of how a breast pump could be
used in play. Two tops, one bottom. After the bottom came several
times (screaming happily, if a bit muffled by a handkerchief gag), the
tops sat with her, stroked her skin, talked quietly with (maybe at?)
her. I don't remember if anyone brought beverage for any of them, but
it wouldn't surprise me.
Then I spent a while in the social space (as distinguished from
the play space) because I was overwhelmed by all the goings-on.
Second scene I watched was a nice friendly flogging. One top,
one bottom. When the active part of the scene ended, the top again
stayed with the bottom until she could regain a vertical orientation,
then they hugged and cuddled for a while (which I found that I
couldn't watch, it seemed *too* personal and private -- odd, but then,
so am I).
I don't know if I *learned* anything, exactly, from watching the
post-scene interactions, but I felt more comfortable seeing that it
was okay to need/want to be taken care of for a bit after playing.
Second playparty I attended, much smaller (five or six people, I
think?), I didn't even realize it was a room party when I asked if I
could stop by and introduce myself. I don't remember all the details
of all the scenes; I was pretty overwhelmed the whole time. I do
remember two, clearly, though. No, three.
Two were nice friendly whippings (single-tail), with different
results. Same top both times. One bottom wanted MARKS, and got them.
One didn't want any marks, and got a nice overall rosiness that faded
within an hour or so. My recollection is that after both, the people
playing hugged and cuddled a bit. I was a bit less uncomfortable
seeing this than I had been at the previous party; it may have had to
do with not knowing the people as well, or something.
The other was considerably more intense, had a much heavier DS
component, and went *way* wrong, leaving the bottom in an
unanticipated, unintended, and undesirable headspace. Aftercare for
that one involved a *lot* of discussion of when the mood had shifted,
what had caused the shift, and how it could be prevented in the
future, along with a *lot* of reassurance from and to both sides of
the relationship.
I had a very mixed reaction. On the one hand, it felt very
personal and private and as though I was intruding. On the other
hand, I was concerned that if I got up and left at that point, it
would interrupt them and break their concentration on fixing what had
gone wrong. On the gripping hand, it was fascinating to see how
things got worked out. And on the octopus-half, I had a strong
intuition that I needed to pay attention in case I needed those skills
someday.
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles <jmi...@usit.net> <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: East Tennessee
rad...@nospam.org
<daz...@grin.net> wrote:
> rad...@nospam.org wrote:
> > Revolvers do not have safeties. ... This cannot
> > be made safe. This is more than a headtrip.
>
> Actually, many modern revolvers have a "transfer bar"
> mechanism which requires the trigger to be in the pressed
> position while the hammer falls, or the hammer simply strikes
> the frame of the gun without hitting the firing-pin.
>
> This is done so that the revolver can be carried safely with
> a full cylinder, and will not discharge if, for example, it
> falls onto the spur of the hammer, or if one's thumb slips while
> cocking it.
I am familiar with firearms construcition. A transfer bar is still
only a passive safety device. Moreover, some revolvers have them, some
don't, and they do fail with no overt symptoms. Having watched a high
quality, exterely popular carbine discharge from a slap on a shoulder
stock, you don't rely on mechanical safeties to preserve life.
> Effectively, the "safety is on" at any time that the shooter
> does not actually have the trigger depressed. This mechanism
> functions independently of the main firing mechanism of the gun.
>
> An uncocked revolver requires a sufficient amount of explicit
> "control input" to fire - either a long trigger pull (if of
> the double-action variety) or a long pull on the hammer
> to cock it for the light "single-action" trigger pull -
> that the risk was probably pretty small in this actual case.
With a struggling and panicked "victim" in a bathroom? It doesn't take
a lot of imagination or common sense to envision a host of highly
possible scenarios where that gun goes off. The gun is grabbed, it
catches on a towel hook, the dom is injured and squeezes reflexively...
I don't care if it has a 14 pound pull, it is still not safe. It
violates both the fundamental rules of firearms safety and the
fundamental rules of WIITWD.
Jim Dugan