Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
I have no problem with the 'barriers' approach. I'd call it 'legal constraints.' No serious bodily harm, or exposure to disease, endangerment of life (or loss of life, obviously). These are on top of obtaining and observing 'consent'-- and in case of conflict, these supersede, take priority over, consent (since consent to serious bodily harm is legally meaningless).
If you add to that, not to inflict what would be a serious, lasting, mental trauma (or reactivation of one), that's pretty much the commonsense 'barriers.'
Roughly speaking, all else is a matter of taste.
My view already stated, is that signals from the sub can help the dom/me know about approaching these
barriers, but reliance on safeword commands, esp. with strangers, in the absence of proof of the alleged dom/mes trustworthiness and appreciation of said 'barriers' is foolish.
J.
If you add to that, not to inflict what would be a serious, lasting, mental trauma (or reactivation of one), that's pretty much the commonsense 'barriers.'
Roughly speaking, all else is a matter of taste.
My view already stated, is that signals from the sub can help the dom/me know about approaching these
barriers, but reliance on safeword commands, esp. with strangers, in the absence of proof of the alleged dom/mes trustworthiness and appreciation of said 'barriers' is foolish.
J.
Last edited: