RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual

RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (Full Version)

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

Message

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 3:57:49 PM)
Both terms are used and one isn't any more 'proper' than the other. XI

Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 4:17:03 PM)
Personally, I think an SS&C philosophy works best for those new to each other - including experienced people. It's a generally accepted lifestyle term (ie most of us have heard of and have the gist of it's meaning) that enables sensible discussion and limit setting from the outset. The term tends to become irrelevant in established relationships because it's replaced by a greater mutual trust, respect and caring.... I'm one who also likes my girl to have a safe-word even though it, too, becomes redundant as the relationship evolves - for the same reasons.... Every relationship starts somewhere and it's often difficult for submissives, esp newbies, to broach the question of their own well-being for fear of offending.... But to be able to draw on a well known term such as SS&C is ideal for promoting healthy discussion. If a dom/me takes offence to that, the sub won't ever have to find out the hard way.... Focus51.

FTopinMichigan -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 4:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedKev What makes you the person who knows so much that you can say they doing something unsafe or causing harm? Oh, Kevin, [;)] I never said I knew "so much," or implied that I was all-knowing, but if I feared for someone, in scene or otherwise, I would address my "concerns." That would not make me a know-it-all, but it would make me a person-concerned. Sure, I may be wrong in my assessment of the scene, but if I were to remain quiet, and something happened, I would not forgive myself for not speaking up. I also don't think speaking up would "harm" anyone. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: WickedKev I covered that in the Experienced Dom as oposed to a newbie. And if he lost himself so much into a scene that he lost sight of the welfare of the sub he was playing with then he is by no means experienced. Interesting you would conclude that, but in actuality, he's an old world "Master," old fart [:D], with more years in the lifestyle than my own years in life (and that's A LOT! [sm=lol.gif]). Experience, and years "in the community" do not account for common sense, and provided care for a submissive. Whether new, old or whatever, the safety issues don't increase over time, as one would think that wisdom grows. Either you're safe, or you're not. He was (and IS) not safe. Experienced yes, careful no. My own learning experience that night was not to trust the self proclaimed experience by others. My sub friend learned more that night, unfortunately. quote: ORIGINAL: WickedKev Again I agree with what you are saying to a point, if you felt aggreived by my playing and I was not breaking clubs rules and the sub was not screaming for help and you approuched me after the play to talk about it then I would more than likely explain what i did, why I did it and how I did it, but that is AFTER THE SCENE. We agree, that's for sure. Problems IN scene are for the Club to handle...or more specifically the designated DM. It's their decision, if anything is against the rules of the club...not mine, or anyone else's. I do see it as the other guest's responsibility to inform the DM though, if they are concerned about anything in the club. How nice it would be if everyone in attendance, at club functions, kept their comments for AFTER scene. I can't count the number of times I've been interrupted by those too excited by the scene, in their attempt to get "into" the scene, or sign up on my 'dance card.' [:D] In my own experience with Clubs in IL, MI, NY and OH, the organization/clubs don't express the rules clearly enough. The rules are available to be read by patrons, and enforced by DMs, but they are basically just 'there'...not really reinforced or necessarily advertised, just available (somewhere on the premises) for all to read (or disregard). Sometime, even as someone that has run groups in the past, I have to say that it's easy to forget that everyone does not follow the same general rules, or even that they are aware of them. I know that I, myself, take it for granted that people have common sense when it comes to the basics, and as we all know "common sense is not so common!" K

wantinaSireorSir -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 4:22:31 PM)
I agree with you Knight of Mists

Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 6:38:21 PM)
Right, and it's a useless one. What one person considers "safe" another person might consider "unsafe." What one person considers "sane" another person might consider "insane." And what one person considers "consensual" another person might consider "non-consensual." (If you don't believe the third example, remember that a doctor who fucks his clients can lose his license for it--even if it is all consensual.) "Safe, sane, consensual" boils down to nothing more than "I like it when people do things my way and don't like it when people do things a different way." But instead of just coming out and saying that you don't like someone else's kink (since we're taught that that's "judgmental"), you have to invent pseudo-reasons like "Oh, that's unsafe" or "Oh, that insane." (The whole thing reminds me of "Your call is important to us," which is really just another way of saying "We don't have an agent ready to answer your call right now because we have made a calculated decision not to spend enough on customer service to answer calls promptly.") quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Sorry folks, but it's not a platitude, nor is it dogma... it's a simple guideline for our community interactions... whether one-on-one or in a public scene.

MistressMelissa -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 9:14:01 PM)
If you are interested, david stien who is given the credit for coining SSC has some interesting coments about the evolution of SSC. He writes about his veiws of SSC and what it has done and the damage it has caused in his piece http://lthredge.com/ds/ssc.pdf You can also get there through his wed site http://www.boybear.us/ Be Well

Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 9:54:44 PM)
That's a very interesting link. I didn't know about this.

Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And what one person considers "consensual" another person might consider "non-consensual." Then the obvious conclusion is that it's non-consensual and shouldn't proceed.... How about what TWO (or more) people preparing for physical interaction consider safe - or sane - or, and this isn't rocket science, CONSENSUAL? It's a simple guideline for discussion, negotiation and/or communication - especially useful for the inexperienced. There's nothing clever (or helpful) about trying to be clever.... Focus51.

EvilGeoff -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:07:26 PM)
SSC has become a marketing slogan (as RACK is rapidly becoming also). And living your life based on a marketing slogan is probably about as wise as basing your life off of someone else's fantasies. If you're going to live your life based on fantasies, at least make them your own fantasies! grin Just Do It, It's the REAL thing! YIK, - Geoff

meesekite -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:10:04 PM)
Hello all... Interesting thread. I also am not overly fond of the mantra SSC, because of the vast differences in peoples perceptions of safety, sanity, and consensuality. As people have stated, what is safe for one, someone else may feel is unsafe. Itelwing stated that "maiming" is unsafe, then went on to say that burning and branding are acceptable, with consent. Yet there are those who would feel that burns and brands DO maim. (I do not ). As for sanity, TammyJo feels that BDSM is not appropriate if it is used as therapy. However, I have found a peer reviewed journal article that states that as a therapeutic tool in a relationship, BDSM can indeed be valuable. (cant find the article else Id cite it) I aggree that consent, real and true is what matters. Consent means a person is able to be aware of all risks and benefits, and alternatives, and thus makes a choice based on having that knowledge. Sincerely meesekite

Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:11:36 PM)
Did you read my example? A doctor and his patient might have a consensual sexual relationship, but a medical licensing board will not consider that informed consent, and can revoke the doctor's license. But that doesn't mean what he did was non-consensual. Someone OUTSIDE the relationship decided it was non-consensual. You know, we put much too much stock in the concept of "consent." It's a useful legal concept because it immediately provides a workable framework for rape and other sex crimes. But it's a legal concept, not a psychological one. There are all kinds of sexual relationships that we don't condone as a society even if they are consensual. The example of a doctor and his patient was only one example, and I don't want to list some of the others because I don't want this thread to get pulled for legal reasons. But if consent isn't enough for us to recognize the legitimacy of a sexual relationship under certain circumstances, the consequences for mainstream relationships should be pretty obvious. A dom can have at least as much psychological control over a sub as a teacher over a student or a doctor over a patient. If we don't allow doctors and teachers to have sex with students and patients even if the relationship is consensual, why exactly do we allow doms to have sex with subs? The more you think about that problem, the more you realize that "consent" is a very imperfect guideline.

Evanesce -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:17:20 PM)
quote: Properly it's "Dungeon Monitor" - not "Dungeon Master". That depends entirely on what dungeon you happen to be in. I've heard both terms used in different locations. Denise the Kaptin's wench (who has played "Dungeon Master" on more than one occasion)

meesekite -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:30:48 PM)
Hello Lordandmaster... OK. I feel society is flawed and wrong on many of its precepts. The issue of consent is one of those areas in which I feel society lacks. I dont feel society should be dictating the acts of consenting adults. I dont care if a doctor and a patient have sex, nor do I care if a student and professor have sex. I dont care if her reasons for doing so are to get an A in the class, as she is failing the subject. (Ethics of that are not relevant to the issue of consenting to sex...that becomes a different topic) Consent to me does NOT involve force or blackmail. So, if the professor had stated to her that she WOULD have gotten an A, but unless she has sex with him, her grade will be a D, that to me would NOT be true consent. As force was used to aquire the act of sexuality. I know WHY society frowns on doctor patient sex, or teacher student sex. And it is because people feel that the inequality of the positions can negate the ability to HAVE true consent. And where force is concerned, as in the example I posited, I aggree. But where there is no force, I see no problems. The same applies to a sub/dom relationship. meesekite

Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:40:59 PM)
That's a reasonable position to take, and I'm generally sympathetic to it. But it still leaves some problems. First, what is an "adult"? There is a legal definition that works (more or less) in legal contexts, but it's not very useful as a moral concept. I think we would agree that an 11-year-old is not an adult. But a 16-year-old? 18-year-old? I'm sure you'd agree that it varies from person to person. And adulthood is not, in any case, a state that you enter into overnight. So the concept of "consenting adults" has a fuzzy lower bound (not to mention a fuzzy upper bound: is a senile 80-year-old a consenting adult--and who decides?) Also, like you, I used to take dim view of the restrictions on doctors and teachers and so on, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think it would be a terrible idea, for example, for a psychotherapist to have sex with someone in his or her care. If you're ever in that kind of position of authority, you'll see that you don't need force to be able to get someone to do something that he or she would otherwise would never do freely. I don't abuse it, but only because I recognize that you can't always do what you want to a consenting adult.

Soulhuntre -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 10:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And what one person considers "consensual" another person might consider "non-consensual." quote: Then the obvious conclusion is that it's non-consensual and shouldn't proceed.... How is that obvious? I suppose maybe if the "one" and "another" are assumed to be the people involved then that might make some sense - but I would still disagree. Consent is a tricky beats. It sometimes comes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. At times it is granted before an action and at others only after something happens. In the end, I take responsability for my own actions... and that includes taking actions that are non-consensual with respect to the person they effect in both my BDSM reationships and the world in general. Every human being who is active in the world takes actions which non-consensually effect others, every day. Thats life. The trick is understanding this and acting accordingly.

Soulhuntre -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/2/2005 11:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Sorry folks, but it's not a platitude, nor is it dogma... it's a simple guideline for our community interactions... whether one-on-one or in a public scene. The terms are so grey, so slippery, so personal and so limited in applicability that they are in effect nothing more than a plattitude. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Safe - means that while you may HURT the submissive or bottom, you do not HARM them. We do not maim or kill one another. We do not spread disease or infection. Fine... now try and apply that generally. What you consider harm I probably do not - hell I don;t agree that "harm" is something that is inherantly off limits. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing There is no margin for subjectivity and judgement here. Despite the fact that most folks who have been around for a while take it for granted, that doesn't mean it isn't a real consideration. Of course there is a margin for subjectivity. hell the very concept of what youc onsider harm is entirely subjective. Well meaning, intelligent peopel no doubt consider what you think of as safe to be "harmeful". Should they run your life? Is ths now a society where we cater to the most squeamish common denominator? quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Consensual - is another straightforward concept. If any physical act on your part is not done with the consent of the other party, then you are not only in violation of the principles of the community, you are in violation of the law. Well, I'll leave the "law" out of this because on an ethical level I couldn't possibly care less about it. "consent" is not at all a simple thing to define or measure. Further, it is not always true that it is bad or unethical to take non-consensual action that effects another. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Your "slave" or "submissive" is there by his or her own choice and consent, and no matter how committed, the moment that person wants out it's over. A perfect example. This is simply not, in my mind, universally true. I know good, intelligent, ethical peopel (including myself) who do not accept that in all circumstances the consent of our property at "the moment" is the defining factor to be considere. Those who are in our service know this and have accepted it. This is not a bad thing, nor is it unique. When one chooses to skydive, they are placing themselves ina situation whre even if they change their mind (in mid-air) they cannot make it stop happening simply because they no longer consent... their initial consent binds them inevitably to the situation till the event is over. As a society we accept that adult humans are able to make those decisions... and it is no different in a relationship. Does the consent of my property matter to me? Of course. Would I release them if they no longer wished to stay? Sure. But woudl that happen "the moment" they decided they didn't want to stay - nope, probably not. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing I honestly feel like some folks tend to forget that this entire scene is based on fantasy. Whatever you call yourself: And I suspect this is why we disagree. Those that believe the way you do will never really understand the lives of those who do not and vice-versa. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Sane - is really the only one that lends itself to subjective definition. It's a little harder for me to break this one down, because what I consider "sane" may seem totally out there for someone else. I've seen some pretty whacky and incomprehensible stuff, but as long as it fell under the first two guidelines, then it would be hard for me to call it "insane". In my opinion each of these three terms is exactly as subjective as this. quote: ORIGINAL: itzelwing Even so, the fact that people tend to narrow the definitions according to their own tastes and experience doesn't change the fact that the SSC "slogan" is a valid and useful standard for behavior in this community. I disagree... I think the reality that people will always tend to misused, self define and manipulate these terms is a perfect reason to ignore it altogether. The slogan has almost no value beyond that of public relations and has been used as a political hammer to often to be tolerated.

Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 7:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Did you read my example? A doctor and his patient might have a consensual sexual relationship, but a medical licensing board will not consider that informed consent, and can revoke the doctor's license. But that doesn't mean what he did was non-consensual. Someone OUTSIDE the relationship decided it was non-consensual. You know, we put much too much stock in the concept of "consent." It's a useful legal concept because it immediately provides a workable framework for rape and other sex crimes. But it's a legal concept, not a psychological one. There are all kinds of sexual relationships that we don't condone as a society even if they are consensual. The example of a doctor and his patient was only one example, and I don't want to list some of the others because I don't want this thread to get pulled for legal reasons. But if consent isn't enough for us to recognize the legitimacy of a sexual relationship under certain circumstances, the consequences for mainstream relationships should be pretty obvious. A dom can have at least as much psychological control over a sub as a teacher over a student or a doctor over a patient. If we don't allow doctors and teachers to have sex with students and patients even if the relationship is consensual, why exactly do we allow doms to have sex with subs? The more you think about that problem, the more you realize that "consent" is a very imperfect guideline. Errr, you talkin' to me? In case you are, yes, I read your example.... At the risk of having to re-invent the wheel on your behalf, I'd have thought this board and other similar sites was about adults sharing a love and need for BDSM in their lives. It's a unique brand of sexuality and intimacy and comes with unique perils and pitfalls as a result.... So when people ask questions re the lifestyle here, I hardly think it's helpful or constructive to muddy the waters unnecessarily with questions (or examples) of ethical or criminal behaviour by so called "professionals" that isn't even BDSM related. Everyone on here started somewhere and as I've continually stated both here and in the past, SS&C is a helpful tool for newbies to get their feet wet without the need for emergency services getting involved. SS&C becomes redundant as a relationship grows and evolves but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good philosophy to begin with. Focus51.

Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 7:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And what one person considers "consensual" another person might consider "non-consensual." quote: Then the obvious conclusion is that it's non-consensual and shouldn't proceed.... How is that obvious? I suppose maybe if the "one" and "another" are assumed to be the people involved then that might make some sense - but I would still disagree. It's not gonna be so obvious to those determined to see conspiracies everywhere, granted. So I'll regard your disagreement as both a validation and irrelevant. wink There is no standard meaning or setting for SS&C. What possible relevance can there be in what two people who'll never meet think is SS&C and what isn't? It's specific to peoples directly involved with each other - if one consents and the other doesn't, there is NO consent! Additionally, if one thinks an activity is safe and the other doesn't, it is NOT safe to proceed. And if one thinks it sane and the other doesn't, guess what? Again, it ain't rocket science.... quote: Consent is a tricky beats. It sometimes comes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. At times it is granted before an action and at others only after something happens. In the end, I take responsability for my own actions... and that includes taking actions that are non-consensual with respect to the person they effect in both my BDSM reationships and the world in general. Every human being who is active in the world takes actions which non-consensually effect others, every day. Thats life. The trick is understanding this and acting accordingly. There's nothing tricky about consent unless you have ulterior motives! Within a relationship, I don't need specific consent from my girl each time I wanna use her; it's already implied because she IS my girl. What she does have to supersede consent is a power of veto which she gets to use only once; thus ending our relationship! Focus51.

night101owl -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 9:02:09 AM)
SSC provides a useful starting point for negotiation and communication, but is far too subjective to form any sort of solid rule. Safety, just like "harm", is subjective-- what one person views as a permanent injury/harm to their body, another may see as a beautiful modification. A scar is certainly harm, as the body tissue has been permanently damaged, but some people like scars. I agree that if someone wants to end up dead, or wants to engage in something with a real risk of death, there's a problem, but there's a lot of fuzzy lines-- driving in heavy traffic involves a small, manageable, but real risk of death. Is 0.5% too risky, but 0.00005% ok? Some people like to try to climb Mount Everest, and I'm not going to say they can't, but whatever risk that entails is too high for me. That's important to know in negotiation. So "safe" reminds people that they need to talk about how much damage to their body are they willing to take, and how high a risk of something going wrong are they willing to take. "Sane" is problematic, especially in the way it maybe suggests that people with mental/emotional disorders (including depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc.) shouldn't participate in BDSM, and that's ridiculous. People should consider, though, how much they're in touch with their motivations, how far away from "normal" they're willing to go. At what point would your partner's potential conduct make you want to say "hold on, you're fucking nuts-- I mean, your kink is SO NOT my kink, goodbye!"? What are your values, what social customs do you want to hold on to and what are you willing to leave behind-- how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? I think the "sane" part of SSC can spur discussion, or at least introspection, on these sorts of things. "Consensual" provides both a touchstone for communication and, I think, the only real standard that should be imposed on BDSM. If there's no framework whatsoever of consent in what's happening, then something is very wrong.

WickedKev -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 9:11:17 AM)
quote: Oh, Kevin, I never said I knew "so much," or implied that I was all-knowing, but if I feared for someone, in scene or otherwise, I would address my "concerns." That would not make me a know-it-all, but it would make me a person-concerned. Sure, I may be wrong in my assessment of the scene, but if I were to remain quiet, and something happened, I would not forgive myself for not speaking up. I also don't think speaking up would "harm" anyone. Think maybe what i wrote was too cryptic, as I wasn't intending it to be an attack on you, for I do not know you, but more an attack on those in the lifestyle that think it is thier duty to inform people on the proper way to do BDSM and to police it, unofficially. Came across two that I knew real life but they were online telling each other how paramount to the lifestyle they were and that it would fall apart without them. I informed them that the lifestyle was here long before they were even a twinkle in the daddies eyes and will still be here long after we are all dust. Funny thing, they still don't talk to me.... quote: Interesting you would conclude that, but in actuality, he's an old world "Master," old fart , with more years in the lifestyle than my own years in life (and that's A LOT! ). Experience, and years "in the community" do not account for common sense, and provided care for a submissive. Whether new, old or whatever, the safety issues don't increase over time, as one would think that wisdom grows. Either you're safe, or you're not. He was (and IS) not safe. Experienced yes, careful no. I hate the term Old World 'Master' and think it's a load of sht. (S'cuse my french) Have been described that way myself and as far as I can tell it just means I'm old. Have known others who are suppose to be 'experienced' and I wouldn't let my slave within 200 metres of them. He seems like one of those, if he hasn't the control to be aware of the sub he is playing with. I do not do the ageist thing, know a lot of young Doms that are excellent Doms and just because I was good friends with the Marquis De Sade doesn't mean I am any better, only differant. quote:* We agree, that's for sure. Problems IN scene are for the Club to handle...or more specifically the designated DM. It's their decision, if anything is against the rules of the club...not mine, or anyone else's. I do see it as the other guest's responsibility to inform the DM though, if they are concerned about anything in the club. How nice it would be if everyone in attendance, at club functions, kept their comments for AFTER scene. I can't count the number of times I've been interrupted by those too excited by the scene, in their attempt to get "into" the scene, or sign up on my 'dance card.' In my own experience with Clubs in IL, MI, NY and OH, the organization/clubs don't express the rules clearly enough. The rules are available to be read by patrons, and enforced by DMs, but they are basically just 'there'...not really reinforced or necessarily advertised, just available (somewhere on the premises) for all to read (or disregard). This I am in total agreement with you, over here we have differant types of clubs primarily Player clubs and Poser clubs. At least that is what we call them, the Poser clubs tend to be more for those that spend a lot of money on what they wear and all they like to do is parade around in it. There is nothing wrong with that, to each thier own but when someone does want to play we have to chase the Posers from the equipment (they can't seem to understand that it is play equipment and not some kind of new snazzy table and chairs) then they will stand around passing comment loudly while you scene. As I said to each thier own but I do wish they would learn protocal.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875