Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
As for claims that D/s is not Weal and Twue if the inferior person has access to a safe-word, all I can say is maybe that's the case in someone's tiny little black and white, ignorant-of-the-complexities-of-human-interaction world. That's a pity for you but if you're making your way in the world on those terms I have no interest in converting you. Rock your monkey to the moon.
Some people have much subtler and richer notions of D and s and have more ways of finding meaning in these activities and more meanings to find than are available in space in which you choose to operate. This fact is demonstrated by their ability to have fulfilling BDSM experiences under conditions which by your own account would make this impossible for you.
That is to say: with a safe-word.
Noah,
The perception of those on the other side of the debate being somehow inferior is self inflicted. Just as if your "subtler and richer" comment needing to be included in your response to imply superiority in using safe words. It rings hollow to me. So should the inferences of superiority in not using safe words should be hollow to those who have confidence in their approach and rules within their relationship. If they ring too true or too close to home, I image the only response must be attack, because the logic of the opposing side is irrefutable. At the very least you can't formulate a strong contrary argument.
Lets look at it in basic terms. What is the purpose of using a safe-word?
Most would reply protection. This is the main reason we focus upon when we counsel others that we say, IN OUR OPINION, they are counter protection. The most adamant newly initiated submissive, can believe they should resist using their safe-word to prove how intense they are. The new dominant can believe that until they hear a safe-word, or at least whatever version of 'yellow' they are using, he isn't giving the submissive what they want. How counter productive to what a scene should be! There is no argument in that no safe-word occurs prior to the fact. Your gun example being the exception, but I've seen 'gun-play' in intense interrogation scenes, not loaded, but used as a prop. It's the 2nd shot. that would generate the safe-word should the gun be loaded, again too late. quote:
To frame a discussion of safe-words with a premise like "they occur after the fact" is simply to ignore vast quantities of plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face facts Outside the 9mm example where is this "vast quantity of plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face"? Injecting the mocking "Weal and Twue" were brought into the debate by you. Just as the attack on using safe-words was implied by you. Confidence in what you do doesn't require mocking those who disagree with your position. If an argument is strong enough it should be enough. to support your position. My perspective is what generate the questions. My apologies if those questions came across as an attack.
Other reasons? Its a shortcut, you don't need to know the other person so well if you can trust them to respond to a safe word. Well, as someone pointed out, casual encounters are better facilitated with a safe-word. Of course the comment had to be given with an inference that those in relationships don't play as much as those causal players. But causal play, like casual sex is a physical experience that doesn't compare to the same physical encounter with a known and trusting partner. A safe-word is just like a condom. It works great when it works, when it doesn't the consequences are usually very serious.
The aspect of who controls the scene in a safe-word environment is a matter of honesty. If hearing yellow, green, plaid, or chartreuse, changes what you are doing, or if you'd stop hearing a safe-word from your submissive, in those instance at least the submissive maintains the control. If I'm driving the car, pushing the gas, brake, clutch pedal and steering; but every turn or the important turns are determined by someone else, I'm a chauffeur in control of the mechanism known as a car, but someone else controls where it's going.
Communication is where the distinction blurs. There is constant communication with us. Sometimes, as subtle as a touch in the 'right' place. Sometimes a whispered question requiring a response. Getting back to danger again, in lieu of a touch or whisper, and instead waiting for a safe-word, I could be flogging a dead or passed out slave if her back was to me; not knowing it happened until releasing the bondage.
The exact reasons given for using safe-words are the same reasons I would point out against their use. They don't help you learn about the other people. They don't replace trust. They don't protect against the exact thing that they are meant to.
Argumentatively, safe-words are what allow a person to submit as a 'victim' of sensation play while maintaining control. They are the same as a person who whats to go someplace, but doesn't want to drive so they hire a chauffeur, or taxi service.
But - SO WHAT? The problem that people have with that statement is that they see it as an attack. It isn't. No matter how you enjoy your dynamic, from either side of the flogger, you enjoy it. If safe-words facilitate your ability to experience it - CONGRATULATIONS! I simply point out what is pragmatically apparent by their use. I would say IMO, but it would be like saying a stone drops due to gravity - IMO.
|
RE: The use of safewords - 
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