RE: Silly SSC vs RACK

RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (Full Version)

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

Message

littlewonder -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 8:21:28 PM)
I think it's up to the person being hit to tell the person about if she has issues or she doesn't want to be hit there. Pretty simple. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about if it happens and you end up having problems. I just play and figure shit happens. If I get hurt no big deal. If I die, I'm dead. What am I gonna do? Come back and haunt him? LOL

tazzygirl -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 8:25:38 PM)
No idea what you gonna do. Not all conditions are known. But, for me, RACK is for the self, and the partner, not just the group. So saying "Statistically, it doesnt matter". To me, health aways matters. Im not saying the group itself would be to blame. Only if they could have foreseen the injury and prevented it. For someone to not disclose something then, to me, that lets the group off the hook. However, new people dont always know the potential risks. Which is what my initial post was indicating.

littlewonder -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 8:50:08 PM)
eehh...then if they don't then that's their responsibility, not anyone else's. I know anytime I've gotten involved in something, anything, I do my research till there's nothing left to research. So this idea that they don't know in this day and age just isn't an excuse anymore.

Dreamless -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 8:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael To me, forms of play that really dont fit SSC would be arranging rape scenarios with strangers, using medical staples to staple someone's labia to a butterfly board, forced prostitution, scrotal suturing, cock splitting, gun play, etc. And the reality is much of that is considered foreplay by some. My goodness, it would be difficult to use cock splitting as a foreplay more than once with the same cock. That would be a difficult fetish. I always saw sane and consent as going hand in hand. If you've consented to say, being "forced" to do sexual play for money then you're doing it sanely, though it might not necessarily be safe, and safety is less about bubble wrap and more that you know what can go wrong before launching into something and are prepared to deal with those consequences. Just because I would not personally allow myself to be anally fisted, does not mean it cannot be done safely by someone sane of mind, consenting to it. I didn't realize SSC and RACK were supposed to indicate different levels of kinkiness, just that you're not going "hey, hey, hold my beer and watch what I can do to my slave" before you crack out the staple gun and the butterfly board. As has been said before me: everything can be made safer with care. I suppose that means I'm in the RACK camp, I just never really considered that they were saying anything different, or anything besides "know what you're doing before you do it, know what can go wrong, and don't do it to someone who says FUCK NO and gets out the mace unless you're both into that as foreplay."

tazzygirl -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 9:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder eehh...then if they don't then that's their responsibility, not anyone else's. I know anytime I've gotten involved in something, anything, I do my research till there's nothing left to research. So this idea that they don't know in this day and age just isn't an excuse anymore. Where did I indicate it was anyone else's responsibility?

Maddog666 -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/14/2013 10:15:07 PM)
This is just my 2 cents into the mix. I personally have difficulties with SSC purely based on the wording and explicit meanings of the words. As has been mentioned already, nothing is safe, it can be made safer, but not safe. Sane - According to whom. Ask the general populace, and you will probably not like what they have to say. Now if you want to say Safer Saner Consensual. RACK on the other hand puts the onus on each and every one of us to be informed and aware of what you are doing and the risks. In other words to take responsibility for what you are going to do. To me RACK is just an evolution of Acronyms that better suited reality. Quite possible one acronyms suggested in this thread will prove to be the next evolution. The real problem is that silly non-existent divide causes very real divides between people.

crazyml -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 2:57:54 AM)
quote: rhabdomyolysis Doesn't occur as a result of kidney damage. It occurs as a result of proper hard-core muscle damage.

tazzygirl -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 4:57:59 AM)
Noooooooooooo it doesnt occur as a result of kidney damage.... it causes kidney damage...

Charles6682 -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 6:08:14 AM)
I'm going to try to not respond too much on this particular thread too much. 1 thing I do want to say is that I don't think living a "vanilla lifestyle" or a "bdsm" lifestyle are somehow separate from each other. I think the 2 are easily connected with each other as a "whole".

lilcracker -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 6:22:00 AM)
I see it all as sort of a false sense of security, kind of like a safe word. He/she practices SSC or RACK, therefore I am safe playing with that person. Same thing with a safe word, I have it so no harm will come to me as long as I use it. I personally leave all of that stuff at the door and KNOW the person I am with.

crazyml -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 9:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilcracker I see it all as sort of a false sense of security, kind of like a safe word. He/she practices SSC or RACK, therefore I am safe playing with that person. This rang a bell with me. I've seen this attitude before as well, and it worries me when I see it, It's as if the person is saying "I don't need to think about the risks to me, my consent or my safety because the other person has ticked the box. quote: Same thing with a safe word, I have it so no harm will come to me as long as I use it. I personally leave all of that stuff at the door and KNOW the person I am with. Bingo - Albeit this means that, in the context of the person you're with, you've figured out the risk (or relative lack of it) with the person you're with...

JeffBC -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 9:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml This rang a bell with me. I've seen this attitude before as well, and it worries me when I see it, It's as if the person is saying "I don't need to think about the risks to me, my consent or my safety because the other person has ticked the box. That's my concern also... I love the idea that people ought to be safe, sane, and consensual or risk aware or whatever. I just think those phrases have been turned into slogans and they are no longer a call to action. I also wonder why you need to tell an adult to be "safe" or "sane" or "consensual". That's a pretty freakin low bar for someone claiming to be "adult". My knee-jerk reaction is to say "Anyone who needed to hear that message does themselves a favor by not participating at all. That would be the only safety for such a person."

vield -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 9:55:57 AM)
This discussion keeps popping up, and of course will continue to do so, since each of us translates what the words really mean to us in different ways. All of the acronyms have uses. But SCC is one of the smartest public relations inspirations the kinky community has come up with. It is ancient history now, but about 20 years ago the religious groups who were opposing sexual freedom for everyone attempted (and sometimes succeeded) in shutting down big regional events by complaining to the hotels and other venues where big regional events were held to try to get our events thrown out. Lots of allegations about our "evile, sinful ways" got flung about. In some cases, these attackers were successful in getting places to cancel reservations. The attackers also tried going on TV and radio in areas near events to try to "whip up" public support to end these "horrible" events. SSC was a defendant's dream in "on the air" discussions. An anti sexual freedom person can only stand there with their jaw hanging down looking stupid when asked by the media: "What do you oppose about safe sexual behavior?" "What do you have against sane sexual behavior?" "Why would ANYONE oppose consensual sexual behavior?" Many media folk who might have enjoyed portraying us as bad without this, took great joy in sticking it to religious zealots they otherwise might not have been eager to fight with. When I negotiate any form of play with a potential dominant or submissive or switch partner, I am NOT going to be defining this as SSC, RACK or whatever. I am going to be talking in detail about "Yes I love this, yes I hate this, this does not much for me but is OK if you like it, this is a soft limit you or I can push, this is a hard limit which we both need to respect" and so forth. No acronym can successfully cover those things, we all have different perspectives, experience and understandings, different needs, limits and desires! Safe, sane and consensual are LOVELY buzz words which help portray the BDSM community as the GREAT people most of us are!

LadyPact -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 10:16:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml This rang a bell with me. I've seen this attitude before as well, and it worries me when I see it, It's as if the person is saying "I don't need to think about the risks to me, my consent or my safety because the other person has ticked the box. That's my concern also... I love the idea that people ought to be safe, sane, and consensual or risk aware or whatever. I just think those phrases have been turned into slogans and they are no longer a call to action. I also wonder why you need to tell an adult to be "safe" or "sane" or "consensual". That's a pretty freakin low bar for someone claiming to be "adult". My knee-jerk reaction is to say "Anyone who needed to hear that message does themselves a favor by not participating at all. That would be the only safety for such a person." If people didn't need to hear it there wouldn't be terms like "sub frenzy" that are so popular. Nothing can get a person to lose all kinds of common sense than the excitement of BDSM. It's not a pretty statement, and I'm certainly not advocating sub frenzy as an excuse, but it's hard to deny that it's a rather common scenario. Same thing happens on the other side of the kneel, too. I've been saying this for a lot of years. I'm not a bottom. If I were, there would only be a certain select few that I've be willing to play with because I know the techniques they use, how they feel about minimizing risks, and what kind of skill level they have. Lots of people want to assume those things about a potential play partner. I'd rather know for certain.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 10:27:21 AM)
SSC came out of the gay leatherman crowd at a time of glory holes, amyel nitrate, and anonymous hard core brutal S&M. Frankly, "their" SSC would cause most hets to faint, lol. My point in this thread was simply that calling things by either label doesn't make them,safe and that as a divide, its actually rather artificial.

Missokyst -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 11:03:16 AM)
FR Weirdness... just weirdness. Shit happens in life, period. Safe, sane, risk aware, shit happens. You may think you are safe being hauled over a lap for a hand spanking but what if a muscle is pulled? Shit happens. I bumped my elbow in a minor car accident and ended up with a numb arm for weeks. Shit happens in the normal world. I remember being a kid and roller skating on asphalt. OUCH.. skinned knees. Shit happens. Or dangling from the monkey bars with my dress over my hips, over concrete. Shit may have happened. I have run with scissors! I am amazed I lived through those harsh and unprotected times. Classifying ssc, rack, or any other acronym is fine for people who want to jump in a catagory. But there is no question that each of us has different ideas of what is safe. Paddling is more rack? LOL ok.. Yeah I will grant that if the jackass paddling me is clueless or uncaring. Would I stop him? HELL YES. Why? Because I am responsible for the choices I make. Labels and catagories mean nothing if each person is not on board with the program being played out by ones partner. They are fine, IF the people involved share the definitions. They mean nothing if at least one of them is clueless. It would make more sense to me to get to know your partner before playing. I personally find acronyms too limiting.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 11:09:21 AM)
Missokyst Didn't you watch that takedown scene I did with that blond amazon? Other than "yes" there was almost no negotiation and there was no physical risk (as I see it) but OMFG was there an emotional risk which neither term actually addresses as most people see the terms. As well as my rep but that another story, LOL

stef -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 11:12:21 AM)
I only play with people who define themselves and their actions by cute acronyms. That's how I know I'll be safe. [image]http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/35.gif[/image]

SimplyMichael -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 11:16:17 AM)
Stef, you just crack me the hell up!

theshytype -> RE: Silly SSC vs RACK (6/15/2013 11:22:50 AM)
FR- The first time I heard these terms were here and I still don't believe I understand the purpose of them. I just don't see a need to be told to be safe, sane, or consensual. To me, it's a given. I know some people lack common sense, but they still will regardless if they followed SSC or RACK.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875