|
ShaktiSama -> RE: SSC/RACK (6/3/2008 9:03:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey
Mostly just because I get offended when people tell me it's appropriate to be in the closet. . .so instead of allowing that I raise hell anyway as a lifestyle, that way I'm very publicly out of the closet so nobody can actually ask me to go back in it. (Did that make any sense?)
Yep, it does. And I've never been terribly closeted myself, although as I said, I did tone things down in some ways. Made compromises to maintain a stable household, a consistent and positive presence of loving adults, and laid off physically risky activity...*shrug* Was doing my best, I'm sure I'm not a perfect parent and my children could file many complaints!
quote:
You've probably seen me get a little incensed on these forums when someone has implied that lifestyle choices just aren't polite to inflict on others. And well, if that's a little extreme I guess I'm guilty. I generally think any kind of social rule that suggests to people that something about them simply isn't acceptable is a pretty evil and damaging rule, so when I find them, I fight them. You know that boys aren't supposed to wear dresses and makeup, right? Grrrr. . .
I understand your point of view, and I also understand the conflicting point of view. I am not in favor of any sort of persecution of people for being harmlessly different, but I still do believe that inflicting some lifestyle choices on others is rude--BDSM in particular, I suppose, because non-participating vanilla witnesses are really not "consenting", in my opinion. I'm not very comfortable with people who subject vanilla strangers to public humiliation scenes, for example, especially when they invoke issues that are still uncomfortable in day-to-day life, like raceplay, etc.. *shrug* I guess my compromise is that I can define something as "rude" or "gauche" without thinking it should be "illegal".
quote:
To bring it back to topic, RACK suggests something very important that SSC lacks: Awareness. Conscious consideration of consequences. SSC has always seemed to me to be just another box people create to limit themselves.
I disagree. To me, SSC implies a great deal of awareness--of safety and consent. This is why, to the degree that there is any worthwhile distinction between the two terms, I tend to use RACK to describe the ethics of riskier and more physically or psychologically dangerous play. SSC is just basic, ethical BDSM--all games aside, there is an authentic concern for everyone's wellbeing, everyone has to be within their right minds, and everyone has to be able to fully consent to their role in the game.
RACK has always seemed to be imply something above and beyond this, to me. If not, why is the term necessary at all? This is why I tend to use it for situations where everyone present is competent, caring, and consenting, but the games being played cannot be made "safe" beyond a certain point. Even if you are very expert and take every precaution, something could go wrong and somebody could get hurt rather badly, or end up wearing a toe tag.
*shrug* Anyway. Upshot is: if I wanted to "piss people off", I could easily project all sorts of negative BS onto RACK too. I could claim that it's a philosophy for people who don't really give a crap about their partners, for example--people who want the luxury of performing BDSM while stoned out of their minds or the privilege of telling someone they've gruesomely injured "Sorry baby, you knew the risks." I've certainly seen the term abused by plenty of thoughtless, careless, brutally juvenile and narcissistic idiots.
I choose not to do this, though, because I don't think that abuse of a term or a philosophy should really define that term or philosophy. Hence I take some umbrage when SSC is called "delusional" or a catch-all term for people who are craven or incompetent. I also do not think RACK is "insane", or needs to be demonized as a catcch-all term for people who are careless and indifferent to causing permanent harm or death.
|
|
|
|
