RE: Sane?

RE: Sane? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane For all you adherents of SSC out there, I'd like to know a few things: 1) How do you define 'sane'? 2) How do you determine if your partner is sane? 3) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity does not make them a danger to themselves or others? 4) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity makes them fit their role in the relationship better? For instance, someone desiring a service sub might find one with mild OCD very attractive. Actually, mistoferin had a very good point to make in her answer: what I consider sane, you may not . mistoferin ...And Tempting Novice Sub and I am sure that there are others... thinks I am a bit insane because I like Rocky Mtn. Oysters...I think they are a bit insane for not understanding and appreciating the fine taste and sensual experience of this delicacy of the West. Consent is one of those things that some submissives want to give each and every time something new is considered if it is even a soft limit that has not been pushed before. Some dominants are so cautious that, even though they have read and re-read AND re-re-read the submissives list of wants and likes and loves and what they will do with any dom or what they will only do with certain doms, they seek consent for each new act. And finally safe...safe to me is doing things that will not cause permanent harm. There again though, you can't always know what will cause permanent harm even though you might think that some things are a given. I am not into blood-letting and part of that is a safety issue, at least within my mind. Others have no problem with it. Breath play is another example...as is fireplay...as is caning...as is almost anything we do. You have to find your own parameters and those of the ones you play with.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:14:21 PM)
Considering that more than half the respondents in another thread admitted to having mental issues of some kind, "sane" is sounding more and more like an absurd criterion to use in BDSM. Oh, and yeah, fire away; it's not as though this is the first time I've criticized the "SSC" concept.

robertolapiedra -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane For all you adherents of SSC out there, I'd like to know a few things: 1) How do you define 'sane'? 2) How do you determine if your partner is sane? 3) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity does not make them a danger to themselves or others? 4) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity makes them fit their role in the relationship better? For instance, someone desiring a service sub might find one with mild OCD very attractive. Hello CitizenCane. "Sane" is a legal term. 1) The person (player, slave, master etc) that "can bear legal responsability for his or her action" is "sane". Mental health issues mostly do not impair the ability for consenting (or not ) to risk. Legally, one could be found insane without mental illness. Common sense is required. 2) You use "your" ability (legal responsability for "your" actions) to discern if your partner can bear "legal" responsability for his or her actions. Verify with your partner, get to know the person "before". Common sense is required. 3) Yes it does. One may have a higher "standard" than the minimal legal one. Common sense is required. 4 ) As long as the person "can bear legal responsability for his /her action". If a person is not sane, she cannot "legally" consent. If you are talking about a person with a "mental illness" that is convenient for your kink, you are delving in a moral issue. "Mild" OCD is "mild" neurosis. Again the majority of people suffering from OCD are legally sane people. Some would associate with an OCD person in spite of the illness, for other's it's an attractive feature? Why not, if it is beneficial to both? Common sense is required. You left out the "safe" part. Safe would be: no harm should come from a BDSM scene or relationship. If BDSM has negative effect on the person and makes the illness worse? Not safe. If it does not negatively affect or even helps, it's safe. As for RACK, I find this to be a "kink "as the "K" represents. Risk "aware" without knowing about the "details" has a safety component, if safe "limits" are included. It does not invalidate SSC (or replace it) as this is a guiding "principal" (not a kink) in BDSM that should be applied to "all" relationships, be they ephemeral, long term or vanilla even. As usual, common sense is required. RL.

CuriousLord -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:21:35 PM)
Since defining "sane" seems to be a problem, I would say: Sanity is the quality of: -perceiving reality accurately -realizing the nature of this reality as it comes to be apparent -expecting similar results from similar input -doing things in one's own interest, as one perceives them to be -avoiding doing things against one's own interest, as one perceives them to be

mstrjx -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:39:48 PM)
There haven't been too many responses that mention these points, so I'll throw this out. (Which might mean that these are unimportant to others.) For the sake of argument, I try to stay away from the mental health definition of sane. Who's to say, right? However being able to consent is important. From my early 'book-reading', the 'sane' portion of SSC typically included no drinking or drug usage by either partner. I, in my relationships, uphold this definition while playing. Jeff

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 Mild OCD does not qualify as insane. It's a mood disorder, a problem with brain chemistry. It's treatable with medication if necessary in the same way that Type II Diabetis is treatable with medication if necessary. In terms of people with mental or emotional difficulties, my rule is whether or not they are functional. Can they keep a job, raise their family, stay in school. You know, function in the real world. Beyond that I need to know that if someone has an illness, physical or emotional or mental, that they are getting the best possible treatment and following doctor's orders. This applies to hypertension as well as depression. You have a problem you go to the doctor and you do what you're told. If you have trouble integrating the treatment into your life, then you see someone who helps you do that. If you aren't capable or willing to take care of yourself, then I sure don't want to be involved. And being fourth generation mood disorder, I practice what I preach. When we talk about 'mood disorders' we are talking in a language that does not include terms like 'insane'. Mental health professionals by and large eschew broad terms like 'sane' or 'insane' in favor of more particular descriptions of the ways in which individuals can be dysfunctional. Which is largely my point. 'Sane' still has some meaning in legal circles as an assessment of a person's general capacity to understand their surroundings and the consequences of their actions, but even there it is a flexible and minutely parsed term. In common speech, it mostly means- 'Well, I can see where that might be okay', and 'insane' pretty much means 'Crap, I'd never do that!'. A flimsy foundation for a 'lifestyle' principle, IMO. In regard to 'mood disorders' and other mental disorders, 'sane' is not a useful synonym, since there are disorders ranging from ADD to DID, and their effects on a person's ability to exercise sound judgement in different circumstances vary widely. The only thing they share is that under some circumstances they make it unlikely for a person with disorder X to make the same kinds of judgements- or, if they can make them, act on them- as a person without disorder X would be likely to make. Taken as particular disorders, many of them have no bearing on a person's capacity for, or suitability for, dominance or submission, but may strongly affect the manner in which they can perform in such roles.

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:44:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vield Anyone can think up clever acronyms to describe what they personally think about, what "the scene" means to them, and anyone can juggle definitions to prove themself right and someone else wrong, as much as they may enjoy doing this. One VERY good reason why SSC is a wonderful slogan for the BD/SM scene is that it is so very easy to defend against people who think our scene is damned or should be forced out of existance, By claiming the our three rules are that all BD/SM should be Safe, Sane, and Consensual, we have left many attacking groups in an untenable position. When someone like the concerned christian women of Illinois go to the media and attack our right to hold major scene events, the local vanilla media has a field day making them look like total idiots. In many cases the media is not "for" us. But it is very hard for them to resist taking shots at the antis, when SSC is our scene motto. "Well Mr. XYZ, please tell the folks what you so vehemently oppose about people insisting upon acting safely?" "So Ms. ABC, why do you object to people insisting upon only enjoying sane actions?" "But Rev. PQR, please tell me what you feel is so horrible about consensuality?" There are dozens of variations of these scenarios, and in most cases scene supporters have no need to debate anything, the antis screw themselves up so badly with the vanilla media that they lose any credibility. They become the clowns of the local 10 o'clock news. Thus I support using SSC as "Guiding Principles" for scene organizations and events. I also support using it personally, because while your definitions of SS may vary widely, I feel consensuality (meaning adults freely and knowingly consenting to all they do) is the dividing line between BD/SM and sexual abuse. I try to always recommend that everyone seeking partners for play or for more than play take the time to thoroughly discuss their own definitions of what they like, what they hate, what their hard limits are and what every term used in their BD/SM vocabulary personally means to each person involved. English like most languages has many possible meanings for many words, and it is very simple for two people looking at the same list of terms to each visualize very different actions than the other. Just reflect for a moment about how many thousands of meanings a little word such as "love" can have to people who are honestly trying to understand each other. The bottom line of this message is that SSC is a propaganda slogan rather than a set of guiding principles. As a person with no interest in public play, this aspect of SSC is irrelevant to me.

robertolapiedra -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mstrjx From my early 'book-reading', the 'sane' portion of SSC typically included no drinking or drug usage by either partner. I, in my relationships, uphold this definition while playing. Jeff Hello mstrjx. Right! Anything that impairs "judgement", which in my opinion is not only related to ingesting psychtropes (mind fucking, disinformation, serious illness, etc) RL.

domiguy -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:48:46 PM)
It's all bullshit.....but please carry on. Can one really ever participate in SSC or Rack w/o a collar of protection?

pauliestl -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:51:46 PM)
My definitions of SSC... Safe: Does not subject someone to serious, permanent or life threatening injury. Knife/edge play and fire is safe cause if done right they do not cause serious, permanent (a scar may be permanent but it is a disfigurement not an injury) and it is not life threatening. Sane: Capable of reasoning and the ability to understand risks and consequences, capable of making an informed decision. Now there are some people in this conversation that have said they dn't care about ssc but I would never play with anyone that I didn't feel could make and informed decision. Consensual: Agreement to particpate in a series of events. This one is important because in some states this one will keep you from being charged with assault.

marieToo -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:54:24 PM)
FR: I don't really sit there and try to ask myself if someone seems sane. If you spend some time getting to know someone, the questions answer themselves without even being asked.

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:55:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: robertolapiedra quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane For all you adherents of SSC out there, I'd like to know a few things: 1) How do you define 'sane'? 2) How do you determine if your partner is sane? 3) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity does not make them a danger to themselves or others? 4) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity makes them fit their role in the relationship better? For instance, someone desiring a service sub might find one with mild OCD very attractive. Hello CitizenCane. "Sane" is a legal term. 1) The person (player, slave, master etc) that "can bear legal responsability for his or her action" is "sane". Mental health issues mostly do not impair the ability for consenting (or not ) to risk. Legally, one could be found insane without mental illness. Common sense is required. 2) You use "your" ability (legal responsability for "your" actions) to discern if your partner can bear "legal" responsability for his or her actions. Verify with your partner, get to know the person "before". Common sense is required. 3) Yes it does. One may have a higher "standard" than the minimal legal one. Common sense is required. 4 ) As long as the person "can bear legal responsability for his /her action". If a person is not sane, she cannot "legally" consent. If you are talking about a person with a "mental illness" that is convenient for your kink, you are delving in a moral issue. "Mild" OCD is "mild" neurosis. Again the majority of people suffering from OCD are legally sane people. Some would associate with an OCD person in spite of the illness, for other's it's an attractive feature? Why not, if it is beneficial to both? Common sense is required. You left out the "safe" part. Safe would be: no harm should come from a BDSM scene or relationship. If BDSM has negative effect on the person and makes the illness worse? Not safe. If it does not negatively affect or even helps, it's safe. As for RACK, I find this to be a "kink "as the "K" represents. Risk "aware" without knowing about the "details" has a safety component, if safe "limits" are included. It does not invalidate SSC (or replace it) as this is a guiding "principal" (not a kink) in BDSM that should be applied to "all" relationships, be they ephemeral, long term or vanilla even. As usual, common sense is required. RL. The problem with relying on the 'legal' use of the word 'sane' is that someone is only legally sane or insane as the result of adjudication. Legally, there are certain presumptions of sanity, but either a jury, a judge or a pair of qualified physicians are generally required to identify someone as 'insane'. This makes that second 'S' in SSC pretty meaningless as long as you don't troll for play partners in the mental ward. Almost all adults can be presumed to bear legal responsibility for their actions (even most of the ones in the mental ward). So, unless you take your partners to court or a psychiatric panel for evaluation, your answer indicates that you simply 'presume' that people are sane.

Celeste43 -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 Mild OCD does not qualify as insane. It's a mood disorder, a problem with brain chemistry. It's treatable with medication if necessary in the same way that Type II Diabetis is treatable with medication if necessary. In terms of people with mental or emotional difficulties, my rule is whether or not they are functional. Can they keep a job, raise their family, stay in school. You know, function in the real world. Beyond that I need to know that if someone has an illness, physical or emotional or mental, that they are getting the best possible treatment and following doctor's orders. This applies to hypertension as well as depression. You have a problem you go to the doctor and you do what you're told. If you have trouble integrating the treatment into your life, then you see someone who helps you do that. If you aren't capable or willing to take care of yourself, then I sure don't want to be involved. And being fourth generation mood disorder, I practice what I preach. When we talk about 'mood disorders' we are talking in a language that does not include terms like 'insane'. Mental health professionals by and large eschew broad terms like 'sane' or 'insane' in favor of more particular descriptions of the ways in which individuals can be dysfunctional. Which is largely my point. 'Sane' still has some meaning in legal circles as an assessment of a person's general capacity to understand their surroundings and the consequences of their actions, but even there it is a flexible and minutely parsed term. In common speech, it mostly means- 'Well, I can see where that might be okay', and 'insane' pretty much means 'Crap, I'd never do that!'. A flimsy foundation for a 'lifestyle' principle, IMO. In regard to 'mood disorders' and other mental disorders, 'sane' is not a useful synonym, since there are disorders ranging from ADD to DID, and their effects on a person's ability to exercise sound judgement in different circumstances vary widely. The only thing they share is that under some circumstances they make it unlikely for a person with disorder X to make the same kinds of judgements- or, if they can make them, act on them- as a person without disorder X would be likely to make. Taken as particular disorders, many of them have no bearing on a person's capacity for, or suitability for, dominance or submission, but may strongly affect the manner in which they can perform in such roles. You missed or deliberately ignored my criteria for interaction; must be under or have been under professional treatment, must be following such treatment orders and must be high functioning. Will there possibly be occasions where an emotional or mental health issues interferes in the relationship? Sure. Will there possibly be occasions where a physical issue interferes in the relationship? Also sure. Insane is a narrow legal definition and useless in a discussion of when to interact or not with a possible partner. I gave criteria instead that I use. Are there times when my anxiety acts up to such a degree that scening ends unexpectedly and unwanted? You bet. Have there been times when a physical ailment has prevented me from doing as either he or I wish? Also yes. But I am a high functioning person with some health issues. We take them into account, both the anxiety and the hypertension. He didn't decide that because I don't have the limberness of a 20 year old that he didn't want me. I didn't decide that because his hair is thinning I didn't want him. We love each other, warts and all and like partners who are devoted to each other do, we make compromises to make sure that each other's needs are met. And we are compatible first off which is the most important part. But someone solely interested in a night of casual, edgy play would use different criteria than someone seeking a long lasting, healthy relationship.

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Actually, mistoferin had a very good point to make in her answer: what I consider sane, you may not . mistoferin ...And Tempting Novice Sub and I am sure that there are others... thinks I am a bit insane because I like Rocky Mtn. Oysters...I think they are a bit insane for not understanding and appreciating the fine taste and sensual experience of this delicacy of the West. So, if you are an exponent of SSC, you play only with people who like to eat testicles? An interesting standard...

colouredin -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 12:58:18 PM)
isnt it all a bit of a pointless discussion because all it means is dont cock someoen else or your own life up by beign a knobhead? you dont need specific words or anagrams (something BDSM generally is far too preoccupied with) Though I would take sane and consensual to be very linked, if you are drunk or upset you can consent to something without being in the right frame of mind to really be able to know what you want.

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 1:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 quote: ORIGINAL: CitizenCane quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 Mild OCD does not qualify as insane. It's a mood disorder, a problem with brain chemistry. It's treatable with medication if necessary in the same way that Type II Diabetis is treatable with medication if necessary. In terms of people with mental or emotional difficulties, my rule is whether or not they are functional. Can they keep a job, raise their family, stay in school. You know, function in the real world. Beyond that I need to know that if someone has an illness, physical or emotional or mental, that they are getting the best possible treatment and following doctor's orders. This applies to hypertension as well as depression. You have a problem you go to the doctor and you do what you're told. If you have trouble integrating the treatment into your life, then you see someone who helps you do that. If you aren't capable or willing to take care of yourself, then I sure don't want to be involved. And being fourth generation mood disorder, I practice what I preach. When we talk about 'mood disorders' we are talking in a language that does not include terms like 'insane'. Mental health professionals by and large eschew broad terms like 'sane' or 'insane' in favor of more particular descriptions of the ways in which individuals can be dysfunctional. Which is largely my point. 'Sane' still has some meaning in legal circles as an assessment of a person's general capacity to understand their surroundings and the consequences of their actions, but even there it is a flexible and minutely parsed term. In common speech, it mostly means- 'Well, I can see where that might be okay', and 'insane' pretty much means 'Crap, I'd never do that!'. A flimsy foundation for a 'lifestyle' principle, IMO. In regard to 'mood disorders' and other mental disorders, 'sane' is not a useful synonym, since there are disorders ranging from ADD to DID, and their effects on a person's ability to exercise sound judgement in different circumstances vary widely. The only thing they share is that under some circumstances they make it unlikely for a person with disorder X to make the same kinds of judgements- or, if they can make them, act on them- as a person without disorder X would be likely to make. Taken as particular disorders, many of them have no bearing on a person's capacity for, or suitability for, dominance or submission, but may strongly affect the manner in which they can perform in such roles. You missed or deliberately ignored my criteria for interaction; must be under or have been under professional treatment, must be following such treatment orders and must be high functioning. Will there possibly be occasions where an emotional or mental health issues interferes in the relationship? Sure. Will there possibly be occasions where a physical issue interferes in the relationship? Also sure. Insane is a narrow legal definition and useless in a discussion of when to interact or not with a possible partner. I gave criteria instead that I use. Are there times when my anxiety acts up to such a degree that scening ends unexpectedly and unwanted? You bet. Have there been times when a physical ailment has prevented me from doing as either he or I wish? Also yes. But I am a high functioning person with some health issues. We take them into account, both the anxiety and the hypertension. He didn't decide that because I don't have the limberness of a 20 year old that he didn't want me. I didn't decide that because his hair is thinning I didn't want him. We love each other, warts and all and like partners who are devoted to each other do, we make compromises to make sure that each other's needs are met. And we are compatible first off which is the most important part. But someone solely interested in a night of casual, edgy play would use different criteria than someone seeking a long lasting, healthy relationship. I wasn't ignoring your remarks so much as focusing on the ones that were more directly on-topic.

robertolapiedra -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 2:03:58 PM)
[/quote] The problem with relying on the 'legal' use of the word 'sane' is that someone is only legally sane or insane as the result of adjudication. Legally, there are certain presumptions of sanity, but either a jury, a judge or a pair of qualified physicians are generally required to identify someone as 'insane'. This makes that second 'S' in SSC pretty meaningless as long as you don't troll for play partners in the mental ward. Almost all adults can be presumed to bear legal responsibility for their actions (even most of the ones in the mental ward). So, unless you take your partners to court or a psychiatric panel for evaluation, your answer indicates that you simply 'presume' that people are sane. _______________________________________________________________ Hello again. Yes, I "presume" people are sane until my common sense abilities decide otherwise. Why should one intervene when someone is suicidal? (depression). In my line of work (corrections) there are "experts" to determine if yes or no "I" made the right decision (common sense evaluation) in "referring" the person for medical attention. You just don't have to be a jockey to know a horse. Originally "sane" meant healthy. In french we say «sain d'esprit», healthy of mind-spirit. The way you seem to render "meaningless", the sane part is akin to one not intervening when one's common sense detects a human being in distress. After all , it is presumption? It may not be "real" distress? Doctors don't go around door to door to find sick people. People use their common sense to bring these people to them. The same common sense applies to "evaluating" a person's "sanity". Why are you saying there is no "principal" involved? The "principal" is: if someone "seems" to you not mentally able to consent, or unable to understand what is going on, you don't do BDSM with that person. If you are in a BDSM relationship you stop, if not? you don't start one. You may help that person by "referring" to "experts" to confirm or infirm your evaluation. You use your common sense. If one day you have a heart attack, you will understand the "power" of a laymen's common sense "judgement" about "your physical health". The same applies for "mental health" (sanity), you do not have to be an expert at least for the "obvious". RL.

CitizenCane -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 2:14:19 PM)
So, Robert, you are saying that your definition of 'sane' is 'not obviously insane', and that you rely on your common sense to tell you when someone is obviously insane? This approach is what I expect most people use, but seems dangerously circular to me. It comes down to this idea of 'common sense', which appears to be not all that common. Like so many other things couched in terms of principle, it seems in the end to be no more than 'what I'm comfortable with'. I don't have any great objection to people making decisions on the basis of what they are comfortable with, but given the vast range and variety of things that people are comfortable with, this does not constitute much of a general rule or principle, nor is it informative about just what you are comfortable with. SSC is constantly presented as some kind of principle, but this approach to defining the term 'sane' reduces at least the 'sane' component of SSC to a matter of personal taste.

robertolapiedra -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 2:26:19 PM)
SSC is constantly presented as some kind of principle, but this approach to defining the term 'sane' reduces at least the 'sane' component of SSC to a matter of personal taste. [/quote] ________________________________________________________________ I said "at least" for the obvious. I don't know about you, but "my" common sense has kept me from suiting my "personal taste" quite a few times! It is (and always will be) a question of "personal judgement", not "personal taste" (or kink). You are responsable for your behaviour, or you are not. You use your common sense because that's all there is for the most part in human interactions. Unless you have a "tri-corder" of some sorts. RL.

lateralist1 -> RE: Sane? (6/6/2007 3:31:54 PM)
To a lot of vanilla people subs are insane. For them it's the consensual bit that makes it insane. I have had far worse things done to me in vanilla life than I ever had done to me while being dominated BDSM style. I wasn't physically harmed. I was emotionally upset but it actually helped me in the long term. Did I truly consent? No I didn't. Did I have the capacity to consent? No I didn't I was too emotionally vunerable. Was it safe. Yes. Have I hurt someone as a Domme? Yes probably. Was it my fault? No he had safe words he didn't use them. Am I sorry? Of course I am. The idea that you can get to know someone if they don't want you to is rediculous. Like most things in life BDSM is a learning curve. But you have to want to learn and have people willing to teach you and share their knowledge with you. That is why this site is invaluable. Thankyou to those who are prepared to use their valuable time in teaching others. But of course even the teachers can learn. Noone ever knows it all.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02