kidwithknife
Posts: 193
Joined: 9/9/2008
Status: offline
|
That's a really good article. I'm going to concentrate on my disagreements with it, as I generally find that makes for more fruitful discussion then a parade of "I agree" comments.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
What constitutes safe and sane differs from individual to individual, based upon their knowledge and experience level, preparation, emotional state of mind, physical limitations, etc. In this way, it is relative to each individual, rather than an absolute that is the same for everyone.
The problem with treating SSC as purely relative and reliant on individual judgement is that very few people aren't going to consider their practises to qualify. Even at the very extremes, those participating in consensual murder are unlikely to accept they aren't capable of making rational and sane judgements to do so, though I accept in that case they probably wouldn't try and claim their activity was "safe". Those participating in dismemberment might not even accept that much, if they had appropriate medical facilities and training. Outside of the extremes, I'm hardpressed to think of any activity that would be considered outside the limit by those who practise it.
quote:
Safe: SSC implies that individuals participate in “safe” activities (understanding that no activity, even crossing the street, is without risk). As extreme (and hopefully obvious) examples, death and dismemberment would not be considered “safe” activities. Even “edge play” (the more “extreme” B/D S/M activities) can (and should) be practiced so as to mitigate risk to (personally) acceptable levels.
But, if as you say, the definition of safe comes down to:
quote:
Where’s that line drawn between safe and unsafe? It differs from individual to individual (ie: it is relative to those in the scene) and activity to activity (ie: experience and training in each specific B/D S/M activity).
how can you categorically consider any activity outside that boundary? As well as that, I think the fact that even proponents of the SSC model need to make clear that they're actually talking about "safer" as opposed to "safe" suggests a serious structural flaw in the model. I think it's necessary to make that distinction. An activity like breathplay can never be entirely safe by any valid definition. What the aim should be is to minimise the risks as much as possible.
I'm not sure the "crossing the road" analogy works. Any adverse effects of that are likely to be a byproduct, not a consequence of the action. I think I'd see BDSM activity as more like participating in extreme sports. A cave diver is always going to be at risk of drowning. But with suitable precautions that risk can be made much smaller.
quote:
Sane: SSC necessitates that both individuals are of sound mind (ie: sane), and that the activity is “sane” as well (participating, even consensually, in your own death and cannibalism would not generally be considered sane. And in case you're thinking "no one would ever do that", it's already been done).
The problem there is the word "generally". Who decides when an activity should not be considered sane. In the example you give (I'm aware of the specific case you're referring to) the surviving participant absolutely rejected the notion the person who was killed was of unsound mind. You make clear later that you're not in favour of giving the 'general public' the right to make that judgement. (Probably a good thing. I'm pretty sure a lot of us would be screwed if that was the case). But then who should? Sadly, I have no answers to this particuarly difficult issue. Just questions.
quote:
Or, in other words, you’d have to be “insane” (or, at the very least, immensely stupid and/or criminal) to expose yourself to the legal liabilities associated with forced participation, or to knowingly engage in an activity whose likely outcome is injury or death (which carries its own civil and criminal liability as well).
I'd strongly question whether most cases of forced participation are carried out by someone who is insane, in either the legal or the clinical sense of the term. Or stupid, for that matter. I have no problem with saying we should reject any non-consensual activity solely on moral grounds, so I don't need them to be so.
On death, see above. Injury is a thorny one however. How are you defining that? Permanent tissue damage? Something that leaves permanent physical scarring? Anything that causes marks that last longer than a week? Because at least some activities commonly accepted in BDSM would fit the general definition of "injury".
quote:
Consensual: It’s tempting to view consent as the simple utterance of the word “yes”, but it has a far broader interpretation. Children can’t offer consent. People under the influence of drugs or alcohol can’t offer consent. People who are uninformed (don’t know what they are authorizing) can’t offer consent. Those that are unable to say “no” (whether through intimidation, an overwhelming desire to please, or are in the throes of “subspace” for example) can’t offer consent. And, of course, forcing your kink upon those that do not desire to participate is nonconsensual (ie: that is what distinguishes an exhibitionist from a “flasher”).
This is the part of SSC I'd have the least argument with. (As I think was probably the case with the inventors of RACK, hence its inclusion). And I think the point you make about consent being genuine if it is both informed and freely given is vital. However, there are still difficult issues.
Take the issue of having an "overwhelming desire to please". I've known some submissives who are submissive, at least in part, because that is an important part of their psychological makeup. I'm sure neither of us would want to suggest they're never capable of giving consent.
Or look at the controversial subject of intoxicated sex. British law says that you can consent if "partially" intoxicated but not if you're "too" intoxicated. And it really is as vague as it sounds. This Saturday just gone, large numbers of people will have gone to a club, got drunk and then had sex with another drunk person. As happens every Saturday night. Now, a significant number of them may be regretting that in the cold light of day (one reason why intoxicated sex is often a bad idea, particuarly with strangers). But I'm not convinced every single of those couplings was actually non-consensual. Or take this hypothetical example. A couple in a BDSM relationship agree, while sober, that they're going to get drunk and then play. There's a good argument that they're no longer being "safe", particuarly if they're planning on doing some of the more 'extreme' stuff. But I don't think that they're being nonconsensual and they'd probably agree, even when they sober up.
quote:
My personal lifestyle interest is in power exchange relationships, and my scening takes place within the context of those relationships. So I don’t have the need to negotiate with strangers or acquaintances. Consequently, I find that the concepts of SSC are more congruent with my role as a Dominant in a power exchange relationship, in that I accept a greater degree of responsibility and control in my submissive’s life (including our scenes).
To throw a spanner in the works, my personal lifestyle interest is very similiar to yours and I don't need to negotiate with strangers or acquaintances, but I don't feel SSC meets my needs. However I think I'd agree with you that the way the individual components of RACK are worded do seem more aimed at those who are involved in casual play.
quote:
And given that I accept that greater control and liability, I am uncomfortable in sharing (equally) the decision-making process inherent to RACK.
In the context of power exchange relationships, I think it's possible to be "risk-aware" without necessarily having equal decision making responsibility. To use an analogy, when I go and see my doctor, I make the decision to largely leave the responsibility for making medical decisions on my behalf. As long as I'm aware and freely doing that, I'm making a conscious decision to take that risk.
quote:
Theoretically, two individuals could be fully aware that the intent and construction of a scene is designed to culminate in death or dismemberment, consensually agree to participate, and still be within the bounds of RACK. And while that is, admittedly, an extreme example, it rather explicitly demonstrates what I consider to be RACK’s significant shortcomings.
I think you're spot on about that example being a good illustration of RACK's major flaw. However, as I made clear above, I don't think SSC escapes that problem either.
And the main reason for is because the issue of where we draw the line on what consensual activity is out of bounds (if we do so at all) and who has the right to do so is incredibly difficult for BDSMers.
To use a slightly less extreme example. If we accept the right of BDSMers to hit each other, can we then legitimately object to football (soccer if you're American!) hooligans choosing to meet in pub car parks and consensually doing the same? (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that no innocent bystanders are at risk).
quote:
I am, admittedly, predisposed towards SSC. Others favor RACK. Which best fits your needs? Only you can know.
That's difficult for me. On one hand, as I've made clear, I feel there are serious structural flaws with the SSC model. On the other, I personally find RACK so vague as to be near meaningless. (Which is the main reason I've critiqued it less in this post. It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall). And I think it's actually far easier to do what I do here and pick holes in them then it is to actually come up with something that is completely workable.
If I was going to come to any tentative conclusion it would be this.
Whether someone chooses to follow SSC, RACK or does what I do and rejects both (and I hope its clear that isn't the same thing as me absolving responsibility on the issues they raise), the vital thing is that people keep talking about and seriously considering the subject.
The absolutely worst possibility would be for people to assume that having these models means we no longer have to look at the issues they cover. That kind of intellectual stagnation would be utterly disastarous, both for the individual concerned and for BDSM in general.
_____________________________
We went to see the fall of Rome - I thought it would please us
To watch how the mighty go in a blaze of hubris
But I just stood there hypnotised by all the beautiful madness
(New Model Army, Into the Wind)
|
RE: Actual difference between SSC and RACK? - 
Profile
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