RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (Full Version)

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



Message

CalifChick -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 2:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysliloneds

however, just a couple of days ago, when i posted in a thread about a non-consensual sadist that i had encountered, the submissive there said that is exactly what she was flying 9,000 miles to encounter... all i could think to myself is:  why fly 9,000 miles when you can find that in just about any bad side of any town?  so based on her statement, i guess the term 'consent' may be an arguable term as well.


No, I don't think it's really all that arguable.  People can choose to make up their own definition, but it doesn't mean it's right.  It's like saying the color of the sky is "quickly."  Okay, that's a new definition for that word...

Cali



Guilty1974 -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 2:36:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Comments and observations welcomed - it does have a serious point to it in that I'm putting together a consultation paper for the justice system here in UK. All comments and observations used will be strictly non-attributable to screen name or actual name (where I know it!)


Personally I'm more RACK minded. I believe that adults should be free to take omformed risks with their safety and/or sanity. But please note the "informed". I do think the Top has an obligation to know the risks he/she is taking and an obligation to share that information with the bottom.

But uhm, I tought the CJB was already given Royal Assent. Isn't it a bit late to write a consultation paper?



MadRabbit -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 2:54:32 PM)

-FR-

I haven't read the whole thread, but the term SSC was contrived to...
  • Educate the public as to differences between abuse and S/M
  • Attempt to impart and teach basic common sense to new people

Then, of course, there is their third reason for existance which is most commonly seen...
  • To be used as some standard to pass judgement over people for engaging in activites that we subjectively disaprove of.

I don't see any problems with the first two, but the third....

I think some people need to find more hobbies and spend less time condemning other people on message boards based on an acronym they are trying to impose as the absolute ethical code of all BDSM.

As far as the question posed...

People drive cars, use firearms, and start fires without invoking any common sense. I have never heard of the nature of such activities being changed due to it's abscense.

I don't see how it is any different for BDSM.



siggygirl -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 4:47:20 PM)

What about RACK?  



MasterFireMaam -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 5:09:40 PM)

I disagree for the usual reason of, "Who decides what is safe and sane?" In the end, what almost everyone believes, whether they're SSC or RACK, is that there must be consent. I take it a bit further and say it must be "informed consent". I must know something about what's being done in order to properly consent.

Master Fire



DreamyLadySnow -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 5:37:46 PM)

Safe: This is risk involved in bdsm. A lot of what we do isn't safe.To some it's not that smart either. Being a grownup means understanding the risks ahead of time and accepting them in advance.
Sane: See above. Manage the risk.
Consensual: Absolutely.



Lynnxz -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 6:12:55 PM)

Fast Reply.

If it isn't SSC, it's some other random acronym. Who cares? As long as everyone is having fun, go at it.



Padriag -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 6:37:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

This is a question, not a statement!

"If it isnt SSC, its not BDSM"

Comments and observations welcomed - it does have a serious point to it in that I'm putting together a consultation paper for the justice system here in UK. All comments and observations used will be strictly non-attributable to screen name or actual name (where I know it!)

E

This is one of those threads I'd probably avoid or else say something akin to what MadRabbit or Lynnxz had to say.  But given Ellen's project I'll see if I can come up with something more constructive.

I would suggest that any attempt by a legal body when examining a case to acertain whether specific activities constituted abuse and or liability, prior consent in some form should weigh heavily in the decision making process, even where this may be counter to the consideration of what otherwise might be considered the "victim".

For example, let us suppose a case of an individual... say a woman, who participated in bondage and sadism activities with prior consent on her part that ultimately resulted in bodily injury requiring medical treatment.  One might be inclined to grant the woman some form of compensation and/or hold the dominant liable for the injury done.  However, let's consider this from another perspective and compare it.

Suppose the case of an individual who agrees to participate in an "extreme sport".  This person, who may or may not be fully cognizant of all the risks makes a choice to engage in the activity.  Should this result in injury a legal body would consider both the individuals own cupability as well as any circumstances that may have contributed to the injury.  For example, was the injury the result of faulty equipment?  If so the provider of said equipment might be held partially or fully responsible.  Where no other cause is apparent, the individual themselves is held fully responsible for their own injury and any consequences or expenses resulting.

Going back to our previous example.  Suppose there was faulty equipment involved... then the provider or owner of said equipment might be held partially or fully responsible.  Given that these activities are generally between individuals who have no formal training (and for which little such is available and rarely in what might be fairly considered practical and/or credible circumstances), both are knowingly engaging in risky behavior.  Thus at most we might hold both parties equally responsible... and in some special cases one or the other more so or fully responsible.

Prior consent indicates for knowledge and intent, though it may not demonstrate full knowledge.  I would suggest that where there is question as to whether a supposed "victim" had full knowledge of activities (when used as part of an allegation or defense), the burden of proof would be upon the "victim" to demonstrate that they were deceived or otherwise misled.  I say this because again, there is little formal training available in these activities, thus both parties are assuming inherent risk and must assume that such exists.

Where a question of consent exists, I would suggest examining prior behavior.  That is, if a "victim" has previously engaged in such activities in the past (particularly the recent past) then this establishes a pattern of behavior that indicates for knowledge, intent and therefore some degree of implied consent, except where lack of consent can be clearly demonstrated.  Such consent should not be implied where no such pattern of prior behavior can be established.



BlackPhx -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 6:43:06 PM)

Laws change and you would be surprised at what is still illegal in certain towns and not in others, compared to state and federal laws, which do in certain circumstances supercede them. That unfortunately is no consolation while you are sitting in jail with your name splashed over the newspapers. Many predate the internet, many are old and have no bearing on today save the simple fact that they were never repealed. It doesn't stop it from being used against you.

As far as I know there are no laws in Florida against whistling in a bathroom, reaching under a stall wall, masturbating in the privacy of a public bathroom stall or tapping your foot, yet there are at least 20 men who have been arrested for doing just those things as a form of Solicting Sex. Their names have been splashed all over the front pages and internet and whoops, even if they are acquited, their careers are pretty much over since they were politicians, teachers and I believe 1 principal of a school.

There are sites that are dedicated to posting some of the weirder laws still active on the books. But here..Foxnews http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351636,00.html has a few for you that are still on the books if you are interested. Also you are correct Alabama has the problem with sex toys, Georgia just has a problem with sex between unmarried couples.

poenkitten



IronBear -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 7:17:07 PM)

Naturally BDSM means Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism. Taken literally (Which I do most of the time with most things), with no reference to any lifestyle. It includes lots of non-consensual practices including the much publicized interrogation of terrorist suspects by the US Military a ns previously the interrogation of IRA Suspects. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were instigators of a great deal of BDSM by their state and secret police.  However regarding the “Lifestyles” SSC is one philosophy as RACK is another. Both are subjective of personal interpretation and many folks I understand use a mix of both. SAFE, like SANE has no hard definition as it is dependent on too many things including the people involved.

Iron Bear
Master of Bruin Cottage
(A Victorian Lifestyle poly home)

"I judge a Man by what I see him do and not by what others tell me he does." (Captain Sir Edward Pellew of the HMS Indefatigable to Midshipman Hornblower ~ C.S. Forrester)







Prinsexx -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/15/2008 7:51:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

This is a question, not a statement!

"If it isnt SSC, its not BDSM"

Comments and observations welcomed - it does have a serious point to it in that I'm putting together a consultation paper for the justice system here in UK. All comments and observations used will be strictly non-attributable to screen name or actual name (where I know it!)

E

I can't guarantee even my own safety with a safe word unless it is heeded.
I can give my consent but it might be withdrawn.
And I wouldn't know if I was insane would I?



sadomasokisti -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 3:11:42 AM)

BDSM here in Iceland is not illegal.  It's illegal to own and use handcuffs, but it's legal to tie someone up with chains and padlocks as long as you have full consent of that individual, and that individual is capable of giving that consent.
If you injure someone to the extent that he/she needs medical treatment, you could be charged for endangering that's persons life because of a reckless or careless behavior.  The same will apply if you cause an car accident here.  If the BDSM accident was caused by an faulty equipment in a well organized and responsible play, charges would most likely be dropped.

Recently there has been a very high profile case in the courts and media here in Iceland.  An undercover TV investigation revealed that a Cult leader and drug rehab therapist was having BDSM sex with some of his clients.  Initially BDSM was made a center theme to make the act the much worse.  The public voice soon discarded the BDSM theme and the emphasis was on how he made his victims dependent on him and that he was having sexual relationship with them.  Not BDSM.
Last week he was convicted for these acts (it's illegal for a person of authority or influence like teachers, doctors, therapists etc. to have a sexual relationship with a person who has less possibility to give full consent).  In the courts it was revealed that he in some occasions didn't listen to safe-words and did things that the person didn't consent to do.  Those things tributed to a longer sentence.

The case will most likely go to the supreme court.




LadyEllen -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 3:56:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guilty1974

But uhm, I tought the CJB was already given Royal Assent. Isn't it a bit late to write a consultation paper?



Indeed it has - the purpose of this is to try to prevent everyday "ordinary" people involved in BDSM from being pursued on suspicion of possessing "violent porn" images (as defined by the Act).

As part of it, I feel its important to be able to educate the authorities about BDSM in general, such that they have an understanding of the difference between what consenting adults do and what abusers do, and more importantly the nature of the sexual predators against whom the Act is intended do, compared to each.

To accomplish that, I need to present concisely - which necessitates a broadbrush approach, but adequately and convincingly which requires some precision where it counts. And I also need to keep it fairly basic - whats obvious to people here is not going to be obvious necessarily, to those charged with enforcing this new law - for whom at the moment we're all dangerous, violent, sexual predators.

E



MastrVran -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 7:00:16 AM)

LadyEllen

The whole problem with your attempt is that the courts have little or nothing to do with reality. In America, our court system has a sort of failsafe, its the jury, they can completely disrgard a law they feel is wrong.

Most courts though, simply see if a "crime" has been commited by looking at what ever the list of activities are, that make up the crime. Did the following occure? And they go down the list. Check off what happened and voila, crime was commited.

1. Hit subject with an object intentionally. Check (Paddle was applied to backside)

2. Insertion of foreign object. Check (Dildo was inserted in vagina, Butt plug in anus)

Add in a few more checks and look...aggrivated sexual battery. The courts dont really care that the people involved liked it or orgasmed from it. If it fits their list for a crime then its a crime. You need juries to nullify such laws when missued. If that happens then the police stop getting warrents issued for no win cases and the DAs will not bother trying to prosecute them.

MV



SimplyMichael -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 8:50:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guilty1974

But uhm, I tought the CJB was already given Royal Assent. Isn't it a bit late to write a consultation paper?



Indeed it has - the purpose of this is to try to prevent everyday "ordinary" people involved in BDSM from being pursued on suspicion of possessing "violent porn" images (as defined by the Act).

As part of it, I feel its important to be able to educate the authorities about BDSM in general, such that they have an understanding of the difference between what consenting adults do and what abusers do, and more importantly the nature of the sexual predators against whom the Act is intended do, compared to each.

To accomplish that, I need to present concisely - which necessitates a broadbrush approach, but adequately and convincingly which requires some precision where it counts. And I also need to keep it fairly basic - whats obvious to people here is not going to be obvious necessarily, to those charged with enforcing this new law - for whom at the moment we're all dangerous, violent, sexual predators.

E


LadyEllen,

For what it is worth, I think you are on the right track.  Remember, many cling desperately to the notion that "my kink is more extreme than yours" and so will always desperately strive to ensure whatever they do is outside whatever definition you come up with.

ANY discussion with the powers that be, that educates them is good, even if the defintion used is "fluffier" than were even average people play.  Anything that expands their definition of "OK" is fine with me.

On another note, I would contact a dungeon in California called Edges, they have done AMAZING work educating local law enforcement about BDSM.  I think their information and experience could greatly inform your work.   http://www.edges.biz/

Remember, anyone who starts, creates, makes, hosts, something in BDSM will be heavily criticized by many.  Some advice will be constructive, most won't, ignore it and move forward!

Thanks for doing the hard work for us!



SimplyMichael -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 8:58:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MastrVran

LadyEllen

The whole problem with your attempt is that the courts have little or nothing to do with reality. In America, our court system has a sort of failsafe, its the jury, they can completely disrgard a law they feel is wrong.

Most courts though, simply see if a "crime" has been commited by looking at what ever the list of activities are, that make up the crime. Did the following occure? And they go down the list. Check off what happened and voila, crime was commited.

1. Hit subject with an object intentionally. Check (Paddle was applied to backside)

2. Insertion of foreign object. Check (Dildo was inserted in vagina, Butt plug in anus)

Add in a few more checks and look...aggrivated sexual battery. The courts dont really care that the people involved liked it or orgasmed from it. If it fits their list for a crime then its a crime. You need juries to nullify such laws when missued. If that happens then the police stop getting warrents issued for no win cases and the DAs will not bother trying to prosecute them.

MV


Uh, bullshit.  Did I mention this was bullshit?  We talk about RACK...show me the risk of being arrested!  Show me how common this is, say we represent 1% of the population (and I think we are vastly bigger) and that is 3 million people.  To be a risk worth concerning ourselves with lets again say if it is 1/100 of 1 percent get arrested every TEN years.

So that would mean 300 arrests every ten years for CONSENSUAL bdsm being prosecuted as assault in any form (as opposed to pro-dommes charged with prostitution)....

And since we all know they only thing better than "if it bleeds, it leads" is "if it is sex, it always leads" and so finding them should be easy IF you are right.  However, as I said earlier you statement is complete bullshit and the arrests don't happen.

However, making BDSM seem illegal does serve those who want to prevent their victims from seeking out other contacts doesn't it?



IronBear -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 9:16:24 AM)

Thank the Gods that we all don't live in the USA and some of us live where there more sensible laws regarding most things. Of course the down side is that some of live in countries with a very small BDSM community spread over a size in which Texas would be lost. Not to worry mate what you are saying may be spot on if someone did the research and ran the numbers there.  I just enjoyed your argument.


Iron Bear
Master of Bruin Cottage
(A Victorian Lifestyle poly home)

"I judge a Man by what I see him do and not by what others tell me he does." (Captain Sir Edward Pellew of the HMS Indefatigable to Midshipman Hornblower ~ C.S. Forrester)






Enochian -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 1:54:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

This is a question, not a statement!

"If it isnt SSC, its not BDSM"

....I'm putting together a consultation paper for the justice system here in UK.



Well; there is also the "other" term of "RACK" (Risk Aware Consentual Kink); that comes into play I believe.

There are a few main issues that come up with either of them; the key to them both in my opinion centers around *Consent*

We can talk / analyze the other terms like: "Safe" - What is safe?  who choses what is safe, what are the limits of it?  I personaly have yet to see accepted definitions of 'safe' in almost any context.  Heck, some of the martial arts work I do is inherently unsafe. Or; "Sane" - Same issues as 'safe'; it's a matter of whom are you asking, and what is their culture.  LOTS of cultrual issues can be pointed out where what is considered 'sane' in one place is not in another.  Heck we can even do that with "What does it mean to be 'Risk Aware'?"  or "Kinky"?

But the key term as I see it is Consent.  When can someone give it; to what level can someone give (and withdraw!!) Consent; and at what point does giving (and withdrawing) Consent give rise to "legaly actionable enviroments" (INAL)

The issue of withdrawal of consent is one that dosn't seem to have enough mindshare given to it in my opinion; as it is directly related to What Happens Next.

Hypothetical Example:  Two Adults Consent to a caning.   Caning Occurs; welts are given/recieved.  Much Fun is had by all.   No Problem.   Two days later; the welted-one gets some 'ZOMG?! what happend to you!?" comments from 'nilla associate at the gym when changing; and decides to press charges (per associates 'insistance').   They indicate that After The Fact they have withdrawn consent.

Arrests are Made. ... Now What?

These types of issues come up all the time in date-rape cases where it was consentual the entire time; untill two days later guilt overcomes them and a charge is placed.   And it gets very messy... was there any coersion?  was there any saying of "no" during / before the act?  was there any consent-mitigating factors? (e.g. alchohol)  etc.. etc.. etc..

That is another scenerio of "withdrawn consent".  And there are no easy answers; but the potential for life-altering effects is very severe; and should be taken as such.  And I am of the opinion that the issue of 'withdrawn consent' is not only just as important; but in some ways MORE important then the issue of consent in the 1st place.

Just my two cents; as I find that some recent decisions in the date-rape catagory set bad precident (cases where there is no coersion, no force, 100% consentual, no mitigators, etc.. and yet the guy is still locked up for 'morning after guilt') in my opinion; and I would hope that a more ballanced outcome occurrs for the BDSM comunity.

-------
"Do as thou will; shall be the Whole of the Law"











Karimacala -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 2:20:15 PM)

I would actually take exception to this.

Safe, Sane, and Consensual is ultimately just a slogan, a bit of PR to make us acceptable to the vanillas. It's a useful piece of advice for those worried about the implications of what we do,  but it doesn't really teach us anything. What is "Safe" enough varies from person to person, as does what they consider "Sane". Even just what indicates "Consent", and how much control people wish to have over what happens to them, can be ambiguous.

What is savage, unacceptable brutality to one person is hot, kinky fun to another, and dull, tame boredom to yet a third.

It's good to have principles, and to live by them, but a saying is not a principle, and a black and white statement or rule of thumb can never be adequate to remove from us the responsibility for considering carefully what we are doing, and communicating well.

We must exercise our own judgement.



DreamyLadySnow -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 5:21:46 PM)

Someone called the cops on one of our play parties a month back ( the complaint was nudity outdoors, I belive). They looked around, left, went on with their evening.
I don't know what police/player interactions are like elsewhere but we haven't had many issues, as long as alcohol and nudity are not present at the same event - that's a liquor law violation.
Law enforcement types should have plenty to do without arresting kinksters. You'd think.

LS



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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