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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.