Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SSC Vs Rack


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: SSC Vs Rack Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 2:44:24 PM   
SaintElecktra


Posts: 7
Joined: 5/31/2007
Status: offline
Yeah, Karynn, excellently put!!!!

(in reply to HardnRuff)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 5:22:51 PM   
teamnoir


Posts: 226
Joined: 4/5/2005
From: San Francisco Bay Area California
Status: offline
Rack stands for risk aware consensual kink.

Where ssc defines some lines "safe", "sane", "consensual" which can and often are confused for objective limits, rack focuses instead on risk awareness combined with consent. If you're both up for it, and you're willing to assume the risks, then go for it.

I think ssc is useful for talking to newbies and vanilla folks about wiitwd. However, rack is much more useful when it really comes down to discussing, deciding, or negotiating what to do. It's also much more clear from an observers standpoint that rack talks about what's right for an individual and really doesn't make any universal or sweep claims the way ssc often appears to.

< Message edited by teamnoir -- 7/9/2007 5:45:01 PM >

(in reply to HardnRuff)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 5:38:18 PM   
HardnRuff


Posts: 213
Joined: 3/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: teamnoir

Rack stands for risk aware consensual kink.

Where ssc defines some lines "safe", "sane", "consensual" which can and often are confused for objective limits, rack focuses instead on risk awareness combined with consent. If you're both up for it, and you're willing to assume the risks, then go for it.

I think ssc is useful for talking to newbies and vanilla folks about wiitwd. However, rack is much more useful when it really comes down to discussing, deciding, or negotiating what to do. It's also much more clear from an observers standpoint than rack talks about what's right for an individual and really doesn't make any universal or sweep claims the way ssc often appears to.
I agree about SSC for talking to newbies and nilla folks. I think they can get a clearer picture from SSC than Rack.

(in reply to teamnoir)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 5:44:56 PM   
KnightofMists


Posts: 7149
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline
great article John... thanks for sharing it.

_____________________________

Knight of Mists

An Optimal relationship is achieved when the individuals do what is best for themselves and their relationship.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 6:28:12 PM   
robertolapiedra


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardnRuff

I would like some fedback on this subject . I am all for SSC and Risk awareness Consentual kink ..Can someone go  into detail for Me about  RACK??


Hello HardnRuff. You can google tons of views and articles on the subject. How about "Informed Consent to Relative Competence of Responsable Risk Management"? ICRCRRM as a group of letters is too long, and not catchy enough, I know!

Still, anyone could come up with his/her own definition of what it is that RACK and SSC are "getting at". As long as there is no copout on responsability to one's self and to others, you have a good thing going using both.

In the lifestyle, be it play or longterm D/s, problems arise from "uninformed" consent (blind faith consent, low knowledege level consent etc) and bad or insufficient skills for risk level of activity. You should always make sure of what you are consenting to and most important, to "who" you are consenting to.

Play safe. RL.



(in reply to HardnRuff)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 6:37:15 PM   
onmykneesforhim


Posts: 112
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline
  Hi,
I have heard of these techniques, and as warm and fuzzy as they may seem, I believe they are for new people. Until they get into TRUST, they will always use these as a fall back. It also gives a person a sense of false security. Giving a slave/sub a password is a bit to far fetched in the real world. jmo
hg
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardnRuff

I would like some fedback on this subject . I am all for SSC and Risk awareness Consentual kink ..Can someone go  into detail for Me about  RACK??

(in reply to HardnRuff)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 10:41:14 PM   
TigerNINTails


Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Original: robertolapiedra
As long as there is no copout on responsability to one's self and to others


This about sums it up right here. And that's the thing that so many seem to fall short with IMO. It really doesn't matter if you subscribe to those acronyms in their entirety, or in part. I do, but they sum up neatly what I've always practiced, even before I ever heard of them.

They do provide a tidy definition. But really, it's about understanding that personal responsibility is paramount, that all actions have consequences, and some actions will change your life for the worse. Or someone elses. Perhaps both. So be prepared, no matter what, to understand what you're doing, the risks involved and simply take f'n responsibility for your actions, when things go right, or they go wrong.

I also agree that the term "common sense" might have had a lot more bearing and been more valuable as an accurate way of stating "the obvious that anyone with half a brain would know", back in the day, when the population hadn't exploded, back in a simpler time, when common sense was probably, indeed... Far more common.

But now, it's almost a running joke, that common sense isn't all that common. I personally find it disgusting that people won't use even a small fraction of what they were graced with for a brain, to make informed, thought filled and responsible decisions.

It really comes down to this. I don't care what acronym you apply or not. You aren't wrong, so long as you don't use "I didn't know it would do that!" or "I didn't know "X"..." Not knowing isn't an excuse, and taking responsibility for your own actions and decisions is the only real way to go. All the rest is just copouts, in my opinion.

Thanks Robert for that bit of inspiration.


_____________________________

Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary

(in reply to onmykneesforhim)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 10:50:36 PM   
TigerNINTails


Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
And it's not a "password"... It's a "Safeword". The purpose is that if they don't slip into sub-space (which in my opinion, once the Top is in control, they need to be very aware of the state of mind of the sub, to know what's going on with what, and to be aware of what they're doing and how it's affecting the subs body and mental state, etc.) that they can say that something is pushing them to levels that they think is too far... By having a safeword which they can utter to either slow things down, or stop the scene entirely, for their own safety.

Though I know that there are lots of bottoms that will simply ignore that they have a safeword, and there are many reasons they might do so. So trusting the bottom to utter it, is far fetched. Giving them something to allow them to take comfort, and use, if they would, is not.

Ultimately, it's the Top's responsibility to be sure that the bottom doesn't come out injured, maimed, dead or brain damaged. Or mentally dysfunctional. Or just in general... "harmed".

When someone wants to accept control of another, the fact is, they, the Top, and not the bottom are responsible for everything that happens to the bottom.

Pissing and moaning about "well, she didn't use her safeworrrrrd!" doesn't flippin count. Plain and simple. But sometimes, the safeword is a good reassurance, especially to a "listening Top" and an uncomfortable bottom.

That and a full disclosure and complete listening to the limits stated on both sides of the singletail.

Peace.

TNT


_____________________________

Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/9/2007 10:51:06 PM   
LadyHeart


Posts: 561
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
Here's my take on it:  " Most people who are involved with BDSM have heard the term SCC – Safe, Sane and Consensual – to describe the way we should play. But there is another term, RACK, which is also used -       Risk Aware Consensual Kink. Those who propose that this description should replace SCC argue that nothing we do can truly be described as “safe” or “sane”, it merely lulls people into a false sense of security and sounds good to vanillas.
 
When I first heard of the term RACK my reaction was - yes! that makes
a lot of sense! Who is to say what is "safe" or "sane"? "Risk aware"
is a much better way of describing what we do.

Now that I have sat with it awhile, I still like the concept, but I am
uneasy that it makes no mention of risk reduction. Yes, we are risk
aware - but we also do everything we can to minimize the risks from
what we do - that was the concept behind the use of the words "safe" and “sane.”

I don't see SSC as simply a public relations exercise for the benefit of vanillas. I see it as an ever present, on going reminder that we need to be constantly
vigilant, actively working on education and safety issues. As for the
sanity thing - if it is "sane" in the eyes of the BDSM community,
then that is a good measuring stick, given that vanillas will never
see what we do as sane.

So - what I am left with is ASS RACK - A Safe Sane Risk Aware
Consensual Kink - and a truly awful acronym, LOL."
 
:))
LH


_____________________________

"BDSM is not an excuse for bad manners."

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 12:36:07 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
You sure do know a lot about the scene.

Edited to add: I suppose I should indicate that that was intended to be sarcastic, just to make sure I'm not misunderstood.  This is one of the silliest and most dangerous attitudes I can imagine:

quote:

When someone wants to accept control of another, the fact is, they, the Top, and not the bottom are responsible for everything that happens to the bottom.


Please, bottoms bear as much responsibility for what happens to them as tops do.  We're adults, right?  Adults are responsible for what they do.  A bottom who doesn't think she's responsible for anything that happens to her is someone I'd steer well clear of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigerNINTails

And it's not a "password"... It's a "Safeword".


< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/10/2007 12:39:01 AM >

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 1:28:29 AM   
TigerNINTails


Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
LaM,

So you think a Top taking complete responsibility for a bottoms safety once they take complete control of that bottom to be a dangerous attitude?

That's asinine.

What was intended, should have been obvious by taking it in context with the rest of the post, which clearly defined what I meant by my statement above.

And yes, I do know quite a bit about the scene. But like everyone, I've still tons to learn, regardless of how far I've come in two decades of practice.

But one thing I've learned that is incontrovertible: When a bottom submits themselves to a scene with a Top, and they are put in a situation of helplessness, or lack of control, that control and that responsibility shifts inexorably and completely to the Top in question. If you think that's false, I suggest you reevaluate your position in "the scene"... As well as your take on reality.

The only time a bottom can be expected to be responsible for themselves is prior to the beginning of the scene when they make a decision to engage in that scene or not to engage in it. After that, they are entrusting themselves, their well being, health and lives to the Top in question.

Peace.

TNT


_____________________________

Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 3:19:40 AM   
HardnRuff


Posts: 213
Joined: 3/17/2007
Status: offline
 I think that RACK makes you much more aware of what needs to be covered before engaging in ANY activity with anyone. I also think that we as a community still have a great need for SSC, the theory behind it was very noble when it came about in the mid 1980's and that theory is still noble today. We as a community need something that is short and catchy and portrays us in a good light. A popular beer commercial advertises its product as "great taste, less filling" and for the people it's trying to reach is a great slogan. It does not advertise with "drink 6 of these in 15 minutes, get behind the wheel of a car and you may kill yourself or someone else". That's the reality of it though isn't it? Beyond just selling ourselves in a positive fashion to the rest of the world, I think we also owe it ourselves AND the rest of the world to educate one another and ourselves in the best most honest fashion that we can. As far as I am concerned, SSC makes the sale possible and nice, RACK is the warranty that keeps it from ever being portrayed as lemon. Think about it.

_____________________________

" Weapon Of Ass Destruction" † Bitch tested slut approved †

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 3:44:29 AM   
Elorin


Posts: 970
Joined: 8/22/2004
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TigerNINTails
The only time a bottom can be expected to be responsible for themselves is prior to the beginning of the scene when they make a decision to engage in that scene or not to engage in it. After that, they are entrusting themselves, their well being, health and lives to the Top in question.

A sub is responsible for a) insuring they have a safeword and/or safe call b) the choice of top, and how much time and effort went into choosing the top c) using the safeword.
A sub can't stop someone from pulling a knife on them and raping them after they have already been tied up. A sub ~can~ take a lot of time in choosing a top, and asking for and getting the kinds of information that reduce the likelihood of such happening.
A sub can't be held responsible for thoughts and actions that go through a top's head once a scene starts, but they can be held responsible for not taking more time and caution before playing with someone.
A sub who agrees to a fireplay scene accepts responsibility for assuming the risk of having a blister or burn, rather than saying "it's all the top's fault, he was a klutz." Maybe the sub couldn't have stopped a candle from overturning or a gust of air from an otherwise inactive air vent causing flame to go in an unintended direction - but if the sub was unwilling to chance those burns, blisters, etc, the sub shouldn't have consented to the fireplay scene as that's the only way to guarantee they won't happen.

_____________________________

'cause when i look down /i just miss all the good stuff / when i look up / i just trip over things

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 4:12:02 AM   
TigerNINTails


Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
I do believe that I covered that in the basics by stating they are responsible before engaging in the scene, in the decision making process which leads to them engaging in it or not.

And you've essentially just reinforced my position. This is an analogy for everyone...

A person can agree to ride with someone in a car. Up to the point that they ride with the person in the car, they learn about the car, learn about the driver (perhaps it's a friend, even) and they feel pretty safe. As safe as one can be, riding in a car with someone they trust.

They get into the car and buckle up. They've just taken all the responsibility for themselves they could be expected to take.

Now this person drives along, and does something stupid, getting the passenger killed... So... Is the passenger responsible for their death, or is the driver?

It doesn't matter if the person made all the decision to get into the car and ride with this other person... The fact remains, this other "driver" was the one behind the wheel. This driver was the one that made the decision, that killed the passenger... The driver is the person that was responsible for the safety of his passenger.

In my mind, there is no difference between the driver of that car, and the Top in a scene. The bottom can only take so much responsibility. I'm not talking about Tops doing things maliciously. I'm talking about Tops not being aware of the situation well enough and/or not taking complete responsibility that comes, inherently, with complete control of a situation.

Back to the situation with the driver of the car that kills that passenger... In any court of law, it's going to be ruled that the driver is the one that has control of the situation (ideally). Therefore, the passengers death is that persons responsibility.

That's not just something that would be determined by courts, but it's again... Common sense. Yes, bottoms are responsible for certain aspects, and wholly responsible for their initial decisions. But once they are incapable of making further decisions, either by chance (such as sub-space) or design (being bound, gagged, suspended, etc.) it's very much the Tops responsibility to own up to personal responsibility and be sure that the bottoms welfare is first and foremost in mind.

And that responsibility rests squarely on the Tops shoulders. Any Top that thinks otherwise, in my opinion, is dangerous. And I mean dangerous above and beyond the danger that a Top poses if they are balanced, aware, informed and responsible. Period. That's probably the only blanket caveat I'll ever make here. The only absolute in my mind is the absolute of personal responsibility and total responsibility that comes with having gained total control over the well being of another.

After all, with great power, comes great responsibility. That should never be forgotten. A bottom trusting a Top is handing over great power.

Peace.

TNT




_____________________________

Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary

(in reply to Elorin)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 4:47:17 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
Do you mean to imply that you're solely responsible for stumbling onto an emtional landmine during a scene, even though your bottom felt the impending approach but did not tell you?
 
Do you feel solely responsible for the fact that a scene that "just isn't working" because your bottom is in a bad head space that day?
 
Do you not make your bottom responsible for telling you about any "bad pain" that they encounter during a scene?
 
Just a few quick questions that come to mind.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 5:04:06 AM   
MistressNoName


Posts: 664
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline
Hello Folks,

Since I haven't seen anyone posting this, so far, I thought I would. It's a link to a page at slave david stein's website. Who is slave david stein?? Well, he's the one who is generally credited with coming up with the phrase SSC in the first place. But I suggest reading the article, "Safe, sane consensual: The Making of a Shibboleth." http://www.lthredge.com/ds/history.htm Maybe if people read it they would come to understand the history of the evolution of the phrase and would come to understand that the actual goals of SSC are the same, historically, as RACK.

MNN


Edited to add: To Rover- Yes, Gary Switch himself states that he coined the phrase RACK as an alternative to SSC. It came up during a discussion on the TES-friends list. For those who don't know TES, or The Eulenspiegel Society is the oldest and largest BDSM organization for sure in NY and I think in the country (at least in terms of age). Gary has been an active member for many years.

Also to add, it can be very confusing wading through the plethora of ideas and literature for those who have been around for a while and for sure for newbies who simply have no idea which direction to go. And in my opinion, the argument back and forth regarding SSC vs RACK is really pointless...as both ideas are after the same goal...my only propensity toward SSC is that slave david stein and GMSMA actually had a political agenda behind the statement that was adopted back in 1983 which started it all. And that agenda was about increasing awareness, responsibility and taking the idea of S/M practice into the realm of acceptability by burdening it's practitioners with an obligation to ethical practice.

< Message edited by MistressNoName -- 7/10/2007 5:22:03 AM >

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 5:10:25 AM   
TigerNINTails


Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
Hi Rover,

No, I wouldn't *feel* entirely responsible for the emotional landmine, stumbled onto during a scene... However, if I did not regard that, and take action upon discovering it, to soothe the situation, and get the bottom talking about it, and airing the situation, then that would be my responsibility. Just as a bottom can't be held responsible for what I might do (which could trigger that emotinal landmine), I couldn't be wholly responsible for the fact that it was there.

But I do consider it my responsibility to outline the scene, and delve into whether the bottom has ever experienced something that the scene might dredge that was a bad experience or memory. I might feel responsible that I didn't ask the right questions. I also might feel irritated that I wasn't informed that that landmine was a possibility. But then again, I also realise that excitement of the moment can sometimes make people absent minded.

I also would be irritated that it wasn't expressed when it was felt, and she didn't call a halt to express it. So no, I wouldn't, in this particular instance feel responsibility, other than the responsibility to deal with the situation as it unfolds.

As for the bad head space, no... I mean, a scene that just isn't working, due to a bad head space, probably shouldn't be engaged in in the first place, especially if I know my bottom well enough. I know my slave well enough to read her moods, almost like an open book. So in that sense, this wouldn't likely be a situation I'd encounter.

However, I wouldn't feel responsible for a scene that isn't working... Unless it was my bad head space. lol. In which case, I shouldn't be doing it in the first place either.

And last but not least. Yes! I make it my bottoms responsibility to tell me (if she can, if not, I attempt to read her reactinos and responses) of any bad pain that might be present... I also have a habit of checking up on condition quite frequently. Which really consists of quick question/answer periods as the scene progresses.

I mean, I figure most of those were pretty comon sense situations, don't you think? All in all, they still fall under the general umbrella of a Top's responsibility to their scene partner(s).

Good questions though.

Peace.

TNT


_____________________________

Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 8:58:24 AM   
teamnoir


Posts: 226
Joined: 4/5/2005
From: San Francisco Bay Area California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigerNINTails

LaM,

So you think a Top taking complete responsibility for a bottoms safety once they take complete control of that bottom to be a dangerous attitude?

That's asinine.


No, it's common sense. Ultimately, whether a player is top, bottom, dom, or sub, they are responsible for their own selves. We all are. Only you can state your own needs and only you can state or defend your boundaries. No one else can do those things.

quote:


But one thing I've learned that is incontrovertible: When a bottom submits themselves to a scene with a Top, and they are put in a situation of helplessness, or lack of control, that control and that responsibility shifts inexorably and completely to the Top in question. If you think that's false, I suggest you reevaluate your position in "the scene"... As well as your take on reality.


Bottoms don't submit to tops. Submissives submit to doms. Tops and bottoms generally aren't even playing with power.

I do all four at various times. And no, I've never been out of control as you state. At all times, even when I'm submitting, I am still, ultimately, responsible for myself. I may grant a dom significant lattitude, but ultimately, bottom line, if something happens that I don't like it's me who's responsible for allowing that and me who has the responsibility to fix it.

To claim that it's my dom's fault is simply a form of blame and a way to throw away one's own personal power. This is neither necessary nor smart. And as dom, I neither encourage nor support this.

As top or bottom, it's really not even relevant.

quote:

The only time a bottom can be expected to be responsible for themselves is prior to the beginning of the scene when they make a decision to engage in that scene or not to engage in it. After that, they are entrusting themselves, their well being, health and lives to the Top in question.


I totally disagree. This is certainly not true for tops and bottoms or power parity SM play. However, it's also not true for d/s play either.

Each player enters into the scene, (or interaction in the case of relationships), voluntarily. And each has the option of ending the interaction at any point in time. If they do not have this option, then the interaction has ceased to be consensual.

If each player has the option of ending the interaction at any time, (that is, if the scene or relationship is consensual), then it could be said that each player is constantly, every moment, making a decision about whether to continue or not. Whether they are consciously aware of this decision, or whether they consciously debate this point or not, they still have this option from moment to moment. They must. Or the interaction is no longer consensual.

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 9:27:29 AM   
teamnoir


Posts: 226
Joined: 4/5/2005
From: San Francisco Bay Area California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigerNINTails
A person can agree to ride with someone in a car. Up to the point that they ride with the person in the car, they learn about the car, learn about the driver (perhaps it's a friend, even) and they feel pretty safe. As safe as one can be, riding in a car with someone they trust.

They get into the car and buckle up. They've just taken all the responsibility for themselves they could be expected to take.


With you so far.

quote:

Now this person drives along, and does something stupid, getting the passenger killed... So... Is the passenger responsible for their death, or is the driver?


They share responsibility.

And here's where your analogy breaks down.

A scene is not a car. In a car, it's difficult to suddenly decide that you've had enough and end the ride. You may be flying along at 120mph. You might be many miles from home. In a scene, (or a relationship), you have the option of ending the interaction at any time. More like a car with an ejection seat. If you don't trip your ejection seat, then yes, you've participated in creating the results, even if those results are your death.

BTW, most passengers killed in auto accidents are rules to be "accidents" where the driver is not legally held to be responsible. For the driver to be held responsible, there needs to be some gross negligence involved. And even then, the "responsibility" is for causing someone's death through irresponsibility rather than intention. Intentional death is murder. Death as a side effect of irresponsibility is manslaughter. These are significantly different things legally.

quote:


Back to the situation with the driver of the car that kills that passenger... In any court of law, it's going to be ruled that the driver is the one that has control of the situation (ideally). Therefore, the passengers death is that persons responsibility.


I don't know what legal system you're talking about, but short of gross negligence, no, the driver is not likely to be held responsible legally in any legal system I'm aware of.

quote:


That's not just something that would be determined by courts, but it's again... Common sense.


Where I live, if someone gets into a car with someone else, they drive, an accident occurs, and the passenger dies, we generally call that an "accident". Unless there is clear "fault", no one is held responsible. It's simply a sad thing that happens occasionally.

If you decide to blame the driver, for no other reason than that they were driving the car, around here, we call that "fucked up". And there's an entire industry of therapists around to help you sort through those feelings and come to some more socially appropriate understandings of what happened.

quote:

Yes, bottoms are responsible for certain aspects, and wholly responsible for their initial decisions. But once they are incapable of making further decisions, either by chance (such as sub-space) or design (being bound, gagged, suspended, etc.) it's very much the Tops responsibility to own up to personal responsibility and be sure that the bottoms welfare is first and foremost in mind.


I disagree on two counts.

First, what you're discussing is dominance and submission, not power parity SM. So your terms are confused.

Second, neither a bottom nor a sub gives up that responsibility. They share it. If they become incapable of making that decision, then what's happening is no longer consensual bdsm - it's rape and/or assault. For the interaction to be morally and ethically acceptable, (even consensual bdsm isn't necessarily legal everywhere), the bottom and/or sub must retain the responsibility and the ability to end the interaction.

quote:

And that responsibility rests squarely on the Tops shoulders. Any Top that thinks otherwise, in my opinion, is dangerous. And I mean dangerous above and beyond the danger that a Top poses if they are balanced, aware, informed and responsible. Period. That's probably the only blanket caveat I'll ever make here. The only absolute in my mind is the absolute of personal responsibility and total responsibility that comes with having gained total control over the well being of another.


I disagree. The top's or dom's responsibility is to maintain consent. Consent is critical. Without that, you are in high probability of committing not only a crime, but also a morally and ethically reprehensible act.

You do not, in western culture, have the right to remove anyone's ability to consent - not without due process, anyway.

Please note that I'm not claiming that a top or dom loses responsibility - only that they do not hold it exclusively. Tops and doms have responsibilities. Bottoms and subs have responsibilities. Everyone has responsibilities. You do not have the power to remove that responsibility nor does anyone have the right to abdicate it. Socially, that's not acceptable nor allowed.

Please also note that I'm not an SSC freak. I'm well aware that people play with these lines daily. The fact that you might have lost consent briefly doesn't necessarily make you a criminal. However, it puts you squarely in the crosshairs of a criminal complaint. Consent isn't a complete protection - there are many jurisdictions where consent isn't a defense against assault but rather assault is considered a crime against the state and thus the state can press charges even if your partner doesn't want them to. (Google "Spanner case" for a case in point).

If you play in this "lost consent" territory, you will, eventually, commit assault, rape, and/or kidnapping. If you're ok with that risk, and your partner is too, then it's certainly up to you to do so. Personally, I'm not usually willing to take that sort of personal risk nor to spend any of my relationships that way. Relationships are generally too important to me to risk blowing the entire relationship and perhaps my personal freedom for the sake of one scene. But that's my level of personal risk. You, of course, can set whatever levels you like.

(in reply to TigerNINTails)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: SSC Vs Rack - 7/10/2007 11:47:21 AM   
Grlwithboy


Posts: 655
Joined: 2/8/2005
Status: offline
I've posted to this effect elsewhere, but I get really cranky with people coming down on SSC as hard and as often as they do. It  was very much a product of time context and place. (GMSMA, early 80's, urban gay SM underground, as the AIDS crisis was beginning to tear that community apart) If we don't look at it through that lens, of a small group of people trying to insert responsibility and some kind of concern for each other and self  into cruising, as well as trying to explain themselves to an increasingly harsh and scrutinizing mainstream with real political threat,  it may seem like it would interfere with the "edge" of SM.  We have a lot of luxuries that weren't there then. SM participants were being blamed for the disease, SM hadn't surfaced as anyting other than a very misunderstood extreme fringe behavior. This was an attempt to behave responsibly and to be able to say to the rest of the world, "no we behave with a level of concern here, it's not just predation, this is how it works."


(in reply to teamnoir)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: SSC Vs Rack Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156