RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (Full Version)

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



Message

OsideGirl -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 9:37:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedKev

Safe, Sane, Consensual, a good slogan to teach the newbies I agree, but to an experienced Dom? Who is going to tell him/her they are not safe nor sane? Not I, for I do not know the dynamics of thier relationship, I'm an edge player myself but what I might deem as unsafe or insane others might see as normal activities. The only person who can tell me they don't feel my play is safe or sane, that I would even listen too is the sub/slave/bottom I am playing with. Anyone else would be told where to go, and god help them if they interrupted a scene to tell me. For me the only valid part of Safe, Sane, Consensual is the Consensual part. Let the flaming begin..........


I've told an experienced Dominant that a scene he did was not safe. He did a fire play session that got out of control. The alcohol pooled and ran down his subs ass crack. He and another Dom ended up trying to slap the fire out (picture Three Stooges) when a wet towel prepared ahead of time would have taken care of it in seconds.

He has decades of experience and this was not his first fire scene. I did not interrupt the secen to tell him that. Mainly because at that point he was little busy trying to put the fire out on his screaming submissive.

Master interrupted a scene with an experienced Dominant. He was drunk and playing with a bull whip. The guy had no control. Hit spectators with the whip and wrapped his sub twice, cutting her stomach. The sub was screaming for him to stop (playing without safewords). Master walked up and took the whip out of his hand.

So, yeah, sometimes it takes someone outside the scene to tell you that. Generally, a lot of submissives would not tell their Dom this for fear of appearing as less submissive or get labeled as "Topping from the bottom".



Soulhuntre -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 12:08:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
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....


No it isn't, I simply disagree that this is a black and white situation.

I think people consent to things sometimes they do not know they consent to, or delude themselves into thinking they do not consent to. Thats leaving aside the fact that I don't conseder consent an absolute moral requirement.

Safety is even LESS clear. There are lots of things that are basically "safe" that some peopel may think are unsafe - their belief doesn't at all change whether or not somehting is safe.

quote:


There's nothing tricky about consent unless you have ulterior motives!


Oh! I guess that explains it. I have ulterior motives then. It's nice to finally get that out in the open :)

quote:


What she does have to supersede consent is a power of veto which she gets to use only once; thus ending our relationship!


Obviously we have different relationship dynamics as my girls do not have that sort of veto power... yet I still consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual.



thetammyjo -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 12:23:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meesekite

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)

Sincerely
meesekite


Please recall that what I said was my definition and apply it to my relationship, not to anything else.

Also, I'm curious as to such an article. Is it a therapist using BDSM in therapy? That would be quite different than what I said.

I am no therapist -- I will be no one's therapist and I show the door to folks who want to use me and my kink as therapy.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 1:16:05 PM)

I guess this is the question I would ask the SSC crowd:

Would you say that "Don't do anything stupid" and "Just use common sense" are helpful guidelines?

If you DO think those are helpful guidelines, we're never going to see eye-to-eye about SSC.



Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 3:19:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
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....


No it isn't, I simply disagree that this is a black and white situation.

I think people consent to things sometimes they do not know they consent to, or delude themselves into thinking they do not consent to. Thats leaving aside the fact that I don't conseder consent an absolute moral requirement.

Safety is even LESS clear. There are lots of things that are basically "safe" that some peopel may think are unsafe - their belief doesn't at all change whether or not somehting is safe.

There's nothing black and white about SS&C - or much else in life! What's SS&C is for the persons directly involved to decide and agree. But it only works if both or all agree. It enables reasonable discussion or communication or whatever....

quote:


There's nothing tricky about consent unless you have ulterior motives!
quote:


Oh! I guess that explains it. I have ulterior motives then. It's nice to finally get that out in the open :)

Glad we managed to clear something up....

quote:


What she does have to supersede consent is a power of veto which she gets to use only once; thus ending our relationship!
quote:


Obviously we have different relationship dynamics as my girls do not have that sort of veto power... yet I still consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual.

They don't have the power to leave you - ever? Only you decide if the relationship isn't working out? You are talking about real living and breathing human beings, right? Or is it that they're literally prisoners of yours - which would fit your assertion that *YOU* "consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual." ?

Focus51.



thetammyjo -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 5:40:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I guess this is the question I would ask the SSC crowd:

Would you say that "Don't do anything stupid" and "Just use common sense" are helpful guidelines?

If you DO think those are helpful guidelines, we're never going to see eye-to-eye about SSC.


I don't think they are very helpful.

"Stupid" -- what exactly does that mean?

"Common sense" -- I've seen so many people who lack it that I find it hard to conceive of it as a guideline in any sense.

As I said, I have my definitions of SSC that I apply to me and mine.

Nothing is shorthand in this world, the meanings change, and frankly I'm glad for that. I'd rather spends hours and days and weeks talking with a potential and then with my partner than make an error which could damage one or both of us. The more you talk, the more comfortable and confident you are -- I find those to be excellent qualities in all people regardless of scene role or identification.



Kindred2Evil -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 6:51:52 PM)

Hubby and I play at a clut in Baton Rouge that is fantastic. They have experienced DM's there, you have to read the rules before you go in, sign your consent to follow the rules, and if you want to deviate from them (i.e. spill blood etc etc.) you have to have clearance from the leaders of this group. They don't ascribe to SSC, it's RACK there. Either way, it's all debatable. Everyone has their own idea as to what's safe and what's sane. It's been said over and over here and I doubt everyone will ever agree with each other.
I think the idea comes from the desire to have at least a loose One-Rule-For-All type guideline. Think back to when you were a newbie, didn't you have tons of questions as to what was okay to do/not do? Of course, as time goes on and you become more experienced your desires change, enter into a relationship with someone and it changes yet again. But you (generic you not directed at anyone in particular) have to admit, that SSC is one of the things that has stuck with you through the years in most cases.
We had a scene at this dungeon, the leaders of the group knew what we were going to do in a general way (blood was going to be shed) and we prepared for that. There was nearly an incident due to mis-communication with a DM. He wanted to stop the scene because I was crying my head off, telling the hubby that I was going to kick his ever loving sadistic *ss when I got off that table etc. etc.. The DM stepped in when hubby grabbed my hair, jerked my head back and put a very lovely, very sharp blade to my throat and said "Shut up or I'll slit your throat." Which was exactly what he needed to say to me at that time to kick me off into space. Luckily, one of the leaders of this group stopped the DM from interupting, taking him off to the side and telling him that he (the leader) knew us well enough to know that this was how we played.
Now, according to the DM he felt like it had passed from safe and consensual into dangerous period. Was it his right to step in? Sure. I could hardly fault the man for doing what he was supposed to be doing, which is keeping an eye on everything.
It just goes to show that we all have our own idea of what's safe and what's sane and consensual. They aren't bad ideas, I just feel like they're a way to get in the door, to help give a feeling of "We take care of our own" so to speak.
Sorry this was so long, had a lot of thoughts at one time [:)]



Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 8:57:04 PM)

That sounds reasonable to me, TammyJo.



ProtagonistLily -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/3/2005 9:36:02 PM)

quote:

Personally, I believe SSC is nothing more than a meaningless platitude used in an attempt to show the vanillas we're not really the scary, freaky, dangerous people they think we are. Within the lifestyle, however, I've seen those three letters used in malicious attempts to destroy the reputations of others, simply because what they do might make a few people uncomfortable.


I haven't encountered a vanilla when I've played, so I would have to say that your assessment is not in line with my experiences. I recall that you said you don't play publically, and if I'm wrong, please set me straight; in your home, you do what ever you deem fit to do, but in a public setting, there needs to be some rules of order. My experience hasn't been to see people degrade or use SSC maliciously in public scene spaces, and I'm sorry if you've encountered this.

I have seen one dumb ass DM use their "power" to stop a scene for safety reasons when he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. The unfortunate predicament there is that it ended an otherwise safe, enjoyable scene for the people involved. The lesson learned here? Don't ask that guy to DM for you again.

quote:

I, myself, when involved in a conversation about SSC a couple years ago, made the comment that I do not blindly follow the SSC mantra. I was told rather rudely by another slave (who had NO clue who he was talking to, was a moderator and, immediately after his diatribe to me went into hiding for several weeks while his Mistress made excuses for his behavior) that it was "people like me" who made living this lifestyle hard on everyone else, and that I was to "Get on the bandwagon or get off this forum." Sorry, but I'm not jumping on that bandwagon even if you use a cattle prod.


I like to be set on fire. I like to be cut and bleed. I enjoy un-negotiated interrogation scenes. This is a little to 'edgy' for some people, and I understand that. But you can find safe protocols for all this play on the internet in droves. The problem with people who abuse their power as a DM or other scene "authorities"(and notice, authorities is in quotes) is that often times they have let their station go to their heads. I am a trained DM in my local scene and frankly, I loathe having to DM shifts at parties. It's a lot of responsibility to be a DM; I don't feel 'special' at all or in any way, shape or form an authority. In my time as a DM, I have had to stop one scene, and it got ugly. For me, participating in the scene is 'happy' time; to have to be the scene police doesn't feed my ego one iota. For those who's ego's are fed through their assumed authority, in my experience, they are 'problem' DM's with issues.

quote:

Everything we do involves some degree of risk. We cannot make it 100% "safe," no matter what we do.


I agree with this. I find RACK to be a little better than SSC in that RACK has implied responsibility, and puts the onus on the people who are engaging in the activity. By using RACK, there is an implication that the person(s) engaging realize there is a Risk involved and have assumed responsibility.

quote:

Much of what we do can evoke that "are you out of your mind?" reaction, even from people within the lifestyle. Everyone's kink is different, and someone, somewhere, is going to think it's insane.


To me, there's a big differance between kinks that I find unsettling, and a scene that is unsafe. I believe there is a big differance between not being someone who can, for what ever reason, tolerate watching another person being whipped to blood, and a scene involving blood spatter that is uncontrolled, and therefore putting others at risk. It is my opinion that there is a safety risk when blood spatter is not controlled, and as a DM at a scene event, I might step in and ask the Top to set up precautions in order to minimize the health risk to others, who have not consented to this scene. I think there's a differance there.

quote:

Even consensuality can be questioned. Master and I live in a constant state of consensual non-consent, meaning that He can and will do whatever He pleases, and even if I don't like it, I'm going along with it as long as it doesn't cross the bounds of legality. I made that choice years ago and, sometimes, people looking in at our relationship might think I'm being abused. Not so. My Master's VERY careful with His property, but not everyone can see that.


Con/non-con situations like yours are fairly common in my experience. But this is not about you and your Master. I see SSC to live much more in a 'public' realm than a private one; trust dictates in a private scene space much more than it dictates in a public because of the fact that in public, a Top can sometimes cause a scene to spill over (i.e. the blood spatter example) into the realm of impacting others who have not consented to a particular scene.

quote:

In a nutshell, what works for us is the fact that we are aware of the risks inherent in what we do, we agree to live our lives a specific way, and we're true to ourselves and each other. Someone else's opinion of our choices means nothing.

Denise
the Kaptin's wench


What troubles me here is how defensive you've been in your statements. What you do is your business, and if you are happy, that's really all that matters. Why you feel the need to defend what appears to be an ideal situation is really beyond me.



beneathfeet -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/4/2005 1:23:48 AM)

Truly a fascinating thread, the diversity of opinions and view points is perhaps endemic of the angst caused by any slogan or phrase ever coined to summarize a complex set of mores and ethos.

Many people have shared some very valid points about the abstract concepts encapsulated within the terms "Safe" & "Sane". While others have made vastly compelling arguments that "Consent" is bidirectional and a concrete manifestation of an ideal.

Having just read all of the posts, and the PDF by the author/coiner of the term i would like to throw my two cents in to the pot.

For myself i have been subjected to more than a little bit of ridicule for the extremes to which i am not just willing to go, butt am begging to be pushed/dragged beyond, provided that the Domme who is pushing/dragging is enjoying Herself. One of my favorite sayings which has caused me more than one rebuke is "i have to look back to see the edge!" This of course represents one side of the diametrically opposed views that make this such a charged issue.

The other side seems to be represented by a more rigid code of conduct. That all three points of the triangle are not just tangible, but perhaps even immutably fixed and measurable.

i would posit that the real truth lays some where in between these two points. That the ethos of O/our community is ethereal and diaphanous at best. Essentially for each and every time and place a context is formed by all of the participants. This context becomes the boundaries that define acceptable behavior. Perhaps the best way i can sum it is up is to quote from a not too recent movie. "They ain't exactly rules so much as they is guidelines...arrrgh!"

Semper Stomped
-jay-



Soulhuntre -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/4/2005 2:08:41 AM)

I want to stay clear... so here is the story so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
What she does have to supersede consent is a power of veto which she gets to use only once; thus ending our relationship!


And I replied...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre
Obviously we have different relationship dynamics as my girls do not have that sort of veto power... yet I still consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual.


Then this reply came...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
They don't have the power to leave you - ever? Only you decide if the relationship isn't working out?


"ever" is far too long a time for humans to reliably discuss. However at the moment the answer to this question is no. Given the current dynamic, my girls are not capable of deciding to terminate my control of them. That isn't because I am forcing it on them... it is because this control is a natural and organic part of how they respond to me.

Obviously things could change - people can always change. People change religeons, polotics, national loyalties. Pacifist turn into terorists, saints into sinners and so on. Humans change "state" sometimes. However that is speculative. As they are at this moment, they are not capable of this type of defiance. I discuss this at some length in a blog entry from more than two years ago so I won't repeat it all here.

Further, having the power to leave the relationship via the freedom to terminate it does not equate to a "veto" power at all. Even if my girls did decide to leave, I absolutely reserve to myself the right to continue doing what I might be doing at the time and allow them to leave later. They knew that going in.

For instance, lets postulate that one of them is to be punished for some reason. During the punishment she declares to me that the relationship is over and she will leave me. That is all well and good - but it won't stop the punishment. Her release will be dealt with later, when I choose.

In summary their theoretical power to terminate this relationship is out of their reach by the force of their own psychology on one level and it is limited by my willingness to control them ont he other. They do not have an absolute, instant veto power.

None of that is the same thing as saying the can never leave. Nor does it have anything to do with being imprisoned. The only thing I have that comes close to that is something they knew about me early on - if they disgrace my house I >will< see the ink they wear on their skin altered in a manner I find appropriate to reflect that. If they remain at that time the honorable girls they are now (if it ever happened) they will willingly submit to that final change - if they are not I am well prepared to break the law to make it happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
You are talking about real living and breathing human beings, right?


Yes, I am :) Real, live, ac-tu-al girls. This situation is not unique to myself BTW - I know of 4 other houses where the same is true. All of them real people too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Or is it that they're literally prisoners of yours - which would fit your assertion that *YOU* "consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual." ?


Their imprisonment (such as it is) is as intrinsic to their make up as their being "prisoners" to oxygen and the carbon cycle. And I consider it consensual "on the whole" because it is. I say "on the whole" because I am well aware that there are moments where the consent is - significantly muddy :)



Rover -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/4/2005 4:29:56 AM)

Interestingly, I personally believe that RACK is a better choice for casual play amongst those who do not know each other well. In my view, RACK is more oriented towards the relative risk (and awareness of said risk) of the activity, whereas SSC also includes more of a relative assessment of the individual you're about to engage in play (requiring more than a passing acquaintance).

Either is a useful framework for decision making (when used properly), and as is the case with many things in life, you get out of it what you put into it.

John



Rover -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/4/2005 4:35:37 AM)

nightowl, I think you're missing the point of SSC entirely. It was INTENDED to be entirely subjective (how could it not be?). SSC was never supposed to offer a hard and fast delineation between safe and sane, and unsafe and insane.

It's purpose was to offer a decision making process whereby the individual could (subjectively and relatively) determine whether an activity with a specific partner was safe, sane and consensual for THEM, not for EVERYONE. That is a rather essential misunderstanding of SSC.

John



Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/5/2005 2:32:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre

"ever" is far too long a time for humans to reliably discuss. However at the moment the answer to this question is no. Given the current dynamic, my girls are not capable of deciding to terminate my control of them. That isn't because I am forcing it on them... it is because this control is a natural and organic part of how they respond to me.

Obviously things could change - people can always change. People change religeons, polotics, national loyalties. Pacifist turn into terorists, saints into sinners and so on. Humans change "state" sometimes. However that is speculative. As they are at this moment, they are not capable of this type of defiance. I discuss this at some length in a blog entry from more than two years ago so I won't repeat it all here.

Further, having the power to leave the relationship via the freedom to terminate it does not equate to a "veto" power at all. Even if my girls did decide to leave, I absolutely reserve to myself the right to continue doing what I might be doing at the time and allow them to leave later. They knew that going in.

For instance, lets postulate that one of them is to be punished for some reason. During the punishment she declares to me that the relationship is over and she will leave me. That is all well and good - but it won't stop the punishment. Her release will be dealt with later, when I choose.

In summary their theoretical power to terminate this relationship is out of their reach by the force of their own psychology on one level and it is limited by my willingness to control them ont he other. They do not have an absolute, instant veto power.

None of that is the same thing as saying the can never leave. Nor does it have anything to do with being imprisoned. The only thing I have that comes close to that is something they knew about me early on - if they disgrace my house I >will< see the ink they wear on their skin altered in a manner I find appropriate to reflect that. If they remain at that time the honorable girls they are now (if it ever happened) they will willingly submit to that final change - if they are not I am well prepared to break the law to make it happen.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Or is it that they're literally prisoners of yours - which would fit your assertion that *YOU* "consider the rtelationship to be on the whole consensual." ?


Their imprisonment (such as it is) is as intrinsic to their make up as their being "prisoners" to oxygen and the carbon cycle. And I consider it consensual "on the whole" because it is. I say "on the whole" because I am well aware that there are moments where the consent is - significantly muddy :)

Lack of mutual consent is something that defines *abuse*! This spiel justifying your "consensual" relationship is on a par with Muslim terrorists rationalising their evil deeds as divine.... At best your "power" and "control" has the hallmarks of Stockholm Syndrome.

That your girls aren't capable of leaving, or even deciding to leave, tells any sane person they're either morons or in serious need of assistance from the local authorities....

But you're just kidding, right? This contribution to the thread is really a "clever" wind-up or even an egomaniac's version of a "dom" living his wet-dream fantasy online, yes? BTW, thanx, but I decided to pass on your link - I've read enough.... Yanno, the way this all makes most sense is if you and your "girls" are sharing a common cell block - where you belong! [;)]

Focus51.



Soulhuntre -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/5/2005 1:37:45 PM)

Part of my comment for clarity...
quote:

ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre
Their imprisonment (such as it is) is as intrinsic to their make up as their being "prisoners" to oxygen and the carbon cycle. And I consider it consensual "on the whole" because it is. I say "on the whole" because I am well aware that there are moments where the consent is - significantly muddy :)


And the post that promted this reply...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
Lack of mutual consent is something that defines *abuse*!



Sometimes. Sometimes not.

The existense of mutual consent is *not* the sole determining factor in abuse in this world.

* The Police may restrain and remove a criminal without their consent - this is not abuse.

* The military can issue an order, and punish disobedience with any penalty up to death, without there being ongoing and mutual consent.One cannot simply decide to no longer consent and be consequence free. This is not abuse.

* A parent can make decisions for their child without mutual consent. This is not the sole factor in determining if that decision was abusive.

* In Florida I can under some circumstances shoot someone dead who has trespassed into my home. I do not need their consent. This is not abuse.

The point that ties all those things together is this - people have taken actions that result in consequences. They knew those possible consequences goign in. That does not always mean something is NOT abuse, nor does it mean something always is.

Heck, turning it around we see that in some cases abusive things are done with someones consent.

Absuse is a complicated beast. It cannot be defined soley by the critria of ongoing, moment to moment mutual consent. Adding in the grey area vagarities of consent both momentary and long term and things get more interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
This spiel justifying your "consensual" relationship is on a par with Muslim terrorists rationalising their evil deeds as divine.... At best your "power" and "control" has the hallmarks of Stockholm Syndrome.


The fact that many people make bad and unethical decisions is not an idictment on the decision making process as a whole. You can certainly draw whatever conclusion you wish - but it wouldn't be accurate. Heck, taking your idea of abuse as the black and white criteria then >preventing< a terrorist from attacking you would be doing somehting to them without their consent and thus abusive :)

My point is simply this - that mutual, ongoing consent is not the be all/end all guarenteed criteria for the definition of consent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
That your girls aren't capable of leaving, or even deciding to leave, tells any sane person they're either morons or in serious need of assistance from the local authorities....


I know some mothers who could not, literally could not, decide to abandon their child. Not that they >wouldn't< choose it... they literally could not choose that. Their personality, ethics and emotional make up mean that without substantial alteration to their mental state and personality it simply is not a choice they could make. Are they morons or in need of assistance because their are choices that they cannot make?

I know people who literally could not deny their god. Regardless of who it hurt or what they cost they would be literally incapable of denying their beliefs. While I consider their beliefs incorrect I do not consider them morons or insane.

The list goes on and on ... the mental and ethical make up of most human beings means that there are things they simply could not concieve of doing, and literally could not choose to do. In a very real way these lines - things we will nto compromise - define us. Someone who had no such lines, no rules, no core principles, would be amoral and without ethics. A very dangerous person.

Clearly the problem then in many people minds is not that there are lines my girls will not cross or that they are willing to risk harm or death for their beliefs and their ethical core principles. I say clearly because everyone has things they will not do, and most people have things they believe in strongly enough that they will kill and die for those beliefs. This is not often an issue of debate.

What seems to be objected to is that >I< as a living breathing human being am one of those things for some people. Yet I am. Almost everyone has choices their internal structure means they cannot make. Beliefs and ethicsthey simply cannot deny and ignore. I simply happen to be one of them for my girls.

Now I can see why some consider my girls misguided. I can certainly see why many would consider their belief in my and my authority misplaced. Many may object to my use of those beliefs. All well and good.

But to object to it all on the somewhat shaky idea that having something one believs in more than their own well being or judgement makes them insane or morons by definition seems to be silly to me. Especially when such drives and beliefs (in higher authority and unavoidable lines of responsability) are so common in the world around us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
But you're just kidding, right? This contribution to the thread is really a "clever" wind-up or even an egomaniac's version of a "dom" living his wet-dream fantasy online, yes?


No, that would be pretty pointless. Everything I say about my life and my situation is the way it is. For real. Out here in the world. The girls themselves are almost certainly real - other peopel I know seem to act as if they exist so it isn't just in my head I hope :)

I am well aware that what I say and what it implies is not something that will be commonly recognized or has relevance to most of those who read it. This sort of relationship construct is a minority one. You will not I didn't use the term "true - this is not a discussion of relative value... simply one of frequency.

I speak about my life and relationship both online and in person because those of us who see it this way are fewer and farther between than what appears to be the BDSM mainstream and while it is clear that people should not need the validation of others to run their house as they choose it is nice to know you aren't alone.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
BTW, thanx, but I decided to pass on your link - I've read enough.... Yanno, the way this all makes most sense is if you and your "girls" are sharing a common cell block - where you belong! [;)]


That's OK... the link wasn't really there for you. it was pretty clear you weren't going to read it... but others have, and that was the goal :)



KnightofMists -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/5/2005 4:25:00 PM)


Kev... thanks for bringing up a worthwhile topic for discussion... what has been contributed here by many has added to my own thoughts and ideas on the whole topic.

But, I just wish to add this final thought..

SSC, RACK or CRAP or whatever catchy phrase you wish to identify with is a personal choice..... BUT, at the end of the day we do what we do because it is FUN and Maybe even Fullfilling!!!! Lets not forget that part.




Focus50 -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/6/2005 4:36:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soulhuntre

I am well aware that what I say and what it implies is not something that will be commonly recognized or has relevance to most of those who read it. This sort of relationship construct is a minority one. You will not I didn't use the term "true - this is not a discussion of relative value... simply one of frequency.

Mate, credit where it's due....

An overview of your posts shows you are indeed the king of spin! Doesn't seem to be anything you can't twist and pervert to justify whatever rationale suits at any given time and that is a skill - if smoke and mirrors can be considered a skill. <applause> You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer?

Some might think the calm and composed manner in which you've handled yourself here are excellent Dom traits - and others might be thinking sociopath! Tomato, tomarto, whatever, such a pity you've brought your misogynous ideals into this particular thread....

Focus51.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/6/2005 4:42:10 AM)

Come on, Focus. Don't call him names just because he doesn't agree with you.



ownedjulia -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/6/2005 4:48:22 AM)

If you let them anger you then you let them control you.

He that can keep a calm head in the face of being insulted/sworn at is a better person



WickedKev -> RE: Safe, Sane and Consenual (10/6/2005 9:12:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists


Kev... thanks for bringing up a worthwhile topic for discussion... what has been contributed here by many has added to my own thoughts and ideas on the whole topic.

But, I just wish to add this final thought..

SSC, RACK or CRAP or whatever catchy phrase you wish to identify with is a personal choice..... BUT, at the end of the day we do what we do because it is FUN and Maybe even Fullfilling!!!! Lets not forget that part.





I agree with you I have enjoyed reading the the replies, both those I agree with and those i don't. I am always a live and let live person, I don't care what your kink is as long as it doesn't hurt (in the serious meaning) anyone, and how anyone Doms, or subs is entirely up to them if it works for them then it is right. It has also made me do some serious thinking, but the bottom line is this, the lifestyle is fun, and yes it is fullfilling for it allows me to be who I am. Regards WK



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875