Pick One- SSC

[WriterDom]

We're all fucking crazy so I'd eliminate sane right off the top.

And nothing is safe. I bet more people get injured taking a shower alone than do with bdsm activities. Hells bells, every 14 minutes or so in the US someone dies in a car crash.

So that only leaves consensual

 

[BeachGurl2]

IMHO, consent can be coerced. You could say that some abused women consent to be abused by allowing the abuse to continue. They do this because they are not emotionally healthy themselves. However, if they were emotionally healthy, they would never consent to the abuse, they would leave. I realize that many here will flame me for that viewpoint, but having been in an abusive marriage, that opinion is one that was earned first hand. People who are emotionally healthy, no matter the heat of the moment, are able to make decisions, read the moment, and know what is safe for themselves and the other person(s) involved. They also know the difference between consent and non-consent, even when unspoken. (Assuming they also have a brain, of course.) Even with the continued discussion above, I'll still take sane.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The question, as I read it, addressed individual points of view, and I'm just trying to explain mine.

As did I.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

IMHO, consent can be coerced. You could say that some abused women consent to be abused by allowing the abuse to continue. They do this because they are not emotionally healthy themselves. However, if they were emotionally healthy, they would never consent to the abuse, they would leave. I realize that many here will flame me for that viewpoint, but having been in an abusive marriage, that opinion is one that was earned first hand. People who are emotionally healthy, no matter the heat of the moment, are able to make decisions, read the moment, and know what is safe for themselves and the other person(s) involved. They also know the difference between consent and non-consent, even when unspoken. (Assuming they also have a brain, of course.) Even with the continued discussion above, I'll still take sane.

Actually some courts I know of will not accept an abused woman's consent as ccnsent if it is proven it was achieved through coercion or threat or blackmail or fear, but that aside, we are not discussing DV, we are discussing BDSM and all blends herein. I am not comfortable with including discussions of abused women in that context as they are not the same and should not be seen as the same. Ffar too many who do not understand some people are capable of enjoying the relationships we do like to insist we are all abused and not capable of making our own decisions due to abuse...I do not encourage that argument as it can be used to damage and disempower both groups.

What concerns me more is your belief that someone can be trusted to read another in terms of what is safe for them as long as they are considered emotionally healthy by the submissive. Unless they are a damn good mind reader, that can never be guaranteed or relied on, and once again, given we are all individuals with individual reactions to particular acts and situations, many which may be triggered by things even the submissive is unaware of until the moment it happens, it cannot be relied on someone else can know how you are experiencing something they are doing to you unless you can communicate it to them in a way they understand, and believe, and then can be trusted to acknowledge and respect. It is also true that many do not suffer the negative effects until after the scene, sometimes a day later. Many a sub has been caught in dangerous or unhealthy situations because they bought the theory the Dom knew what was happening for them and what was right for them.

For instance, one of my loves has always been bondage....even found it a good cure for insomnia...that was until my father suicided. I didn't realise there was a problem until the first time after that event when F went to restrain me as we had always done...I went into instant mental hell, didn't understand what was happening to me, and next time he tried I was immediately hysterical in a major way, couldn't breathe and was screaming which is not me at all. He knew me through and through, I knew me through and through, and yet neither of us foresaw what was going to happen, or that anything was going to happen, and which over 2 years later is still being worked through. For your own safety, don't fall into believing someone you are playing with should be able to read you just because they are an experienced (or not) Dom/me and don't appear to have mental/emotional issues of their own (my belief is eveyone has some level of emotional issues, how they deal or if they deal with them can make a big difference).

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

People who are emotionally healthy, no matter the heat of the moment, are able to make decisions, read the moment, and know what is safe for themselves and the other person(s) involved. They also know the difference between consent and non-consent, even when unspoken.

No, I do not believe this is correct. I agree with Catalina's comments in the 2nd paragraph of the post above this one, and would urge you to read it carefully.

As for the issue of abuse vs. BDSM, I'll say the following.

Somewhere, there is a line between BDSM and abuse. But it can be hard to see, and it varies quite significantly from person to person.

Until the day that God Almighty shows up in my bedroom and draws that line, the distinction between BDSM and abuse is one that my partner and I must make for ourselves.

To do this, we each rely on our reason, our judgment, and our good sense.

As the one in control, I view myself as having an additional responsibility - over & beyond that of my partner - to keep things from going too far. Of course I should honor her safeword. But there's a lot more to the responsibility I'm talking about here than just stopping when she calls Red.

The view from the bottom looks different, I'm sure. But from the top side, as I see it, consent just isn't enough.

 

[SpectreT]

Well, it all depends on your point of view.

"...consent just isn't enough."

JMohegan, as far as you go with it, I see your point. Sanity, as you define it, precludes non consensual activity. Fine answer, but it's not all-inclusive in that fashion, as far as I can tell. Which is why the tripod has three legs; one or two aren't stable enough on their own.

I notice with wry amusement that "Safe" has very few written explanations for why it was chosen; I'm with WriterDom on that one; everything we do is inherently unsafe, right up to brushing our teeth in the morning, leave alone alphabet sexuality. All we can do on the "Safe" front is mitigate the risk factors any way we can.

"Sane" is relative. Catalina made an excellent point in that regard. For me, permanent marks are on my "no" list, giving or receiving. For her, it was great - I think it's a little "out there", pushing the boundaries if not jumping back and forth over them. (And yes, I'd even urge a lover who wanted a tattoo (of my name for example) not to get one.)

For me, "Consent" is the watermark, the stamp that has to be met. Assuming people are intelligent, self-preserving, cautious sorts, they'll verify that their prospective partner is using the same version of reality that they are, whether it's 1.0.4 or 10.4.7; in other words, that their "sanity" lines up, and their "safety" values are similar, before offering consent.

Sane looks out for safety and makes sure Consensual is informed properly. Consent is a guardian of Safety and Sanity. Safety, well, it's just kind of out there on its own, but it's the reason the ther two legs don't tip over.

They're all vital, but to me, Consensual is the key leg. And that precludes coercion of any sort, in my book.

 

[SirFace]

I voted sane. With the definition above in mind, my feeling is that safe and consensual would only naturally follow.

Ditto

 

[JMohegan]

Well, it all depends on your point of view.

Yes, most definitely.

For me, "Consent" is the watermark, the stamp that has to be met. Assuming people are intelligent, self-preserving, cautious sorts, they'll verify that their prospective partner is using the same version of reality that they are, whether it's 1.0.4 or 10.4.7; in other words, that their "sanity" lines up, and their "safety" values are similar, before offering consent.

This is, or should be, absolutely true at the relationship level.

But I have been focusing on SSC as it applies to BDSM play. Specifically, what happens when I am standing over another human being who is, quite literally, at my mercy.

SpectreT, you identify as a switch, isn't that right? Have you ever engaged in BDSM play on the top side? If so, then think about the reasons why you have terminated a specific type of play in the past. Many reasons, right? One obviously would be hearing the safeword. Others relate to your personal satisfaction.

But have you ever wanted to keep going, yet noticed something about the breathing, color of the skin, timbre of your partner's voice, etc. that made you conclude that continuing would not be a good idea? Ever stopped, not because you had an orgasm or heard the safeword, but simply because you felt it was the right thing to do for the sake of your partner, or the partnership itself, or even just to avoid having to give aftercare for the next three weeks?

That's the kind of situation that I'm thinking about when I say that, to me, consent in the moment is defined by the safeword. And from my point of view, consent is not enough.

 

[SpectreT]

To be honest, I haven't played that hard, physically. At present, my kinks are relatively mild things.

In all seriousness, in the time I was "on the top side", it was only an issue twice - she had a panic attack as I was binding her the very first time, so we stopped that real quick. A couple of weeks, and a lot of discussion, a little desensitization, and the panic attacks never came back. (Bondage was more my kink; spanking was her thing, but she went along with it once we got around her issues with it; turns out it was mild claustrophobia, but I digress)

The other time was actually kind of like you suggested; she wanted a lot more spanking, and I was pretty sure we'd break skin if I gave her any more. Purple isn't a good color for buttocks, I don't think. Pink to dark red and shiny works better for me.

But, again, to me, that goes back to the responsibility laid on me by her consent, and my own not consenting to beat her ass enough to do genuine damage.

 

[His_pita]

Consensual

 

[FurryFury]

Flame on if you wish, but consensual is a HUGE and a prime, overriding need for me.

Sane (really who the fuck is sane, huh?) and even safe (hey I love doing things others tell me aren't safe, BFD,) are much more negotiable IMO.

I love the fantasy on nonconsensual but having been in a long mostly non consensual relationship, it's a big issue for me IRL.

Fury

 

[JMohegan]

The other time was actually kind of like you suggested; she wanted a lot more spanking, and I was pretty sure we'd break skin if I gave her any more. Purple isn't a good color for buttocks, I don't think. Pink to dark red and shiny works better for me.

But, again, to me, that goes back to the responsibility laid on me by her consent, and my own not consenting to beat her ass enough to do genuine damage.

This makes sense to me, and shows me that you understand the responsibility of the top side that I've been talking about here.

 

[JMohegan]

Sane (really who the fuck is sane, huh?)

I have the capacity to behave in a way that reflects healthy reasoning, sound judgment, and good sense.

Not when I have been drinking, and not when I am under the influence of powerful emotions such as rage or grief.

But, generally speaking, I consider myself to be sane.

You may disagree. That's no problem, because I am not your partner.

But I would urge you to find a partner whom you do believe has the capacity to behave in a way that reflects healthy reasoning, sound judgment, and good sense, before you start to play.

 

[A Desert Rose]

These choices are subjective and up to the individual for interpretation.

To paraphrase Fury:
What's sane to me, might not be to someone else and vise versa. Who determines who and what is sane? Answer: Ideally, both parties involved.

What's safe to me, might not be to someone else and blah blah. Who determines who and what is safe? Answer: Ideally, see above.

Even consent is subjective. Is it implied consent? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then have you not implied consent to certain things? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then you have negotiated and consented to certain behaviors and activities... unless you stop and renegotiate before any new thing arises. Sometimes though, inspiration occurs in the middle of an emotional event and there's no time to negotiate. You rely on being safe and sane (whatever that means to both parties) and with someone who is also, to determine the consent at that moment and whether and how far to proceed, at that moment.

I can't see any answer that is more right (for lack of a better phrase) than another. I know what's crazy and hazardous for me and what I won't agree to. I've done things that, I believe were crazy and unsafe and that I really didn't consent to - in the moment, sort of speak because I consented to be part of a relationship at the beginning and in the whole.

For whatever it's worth...

 

[Prof Bill]

Consensual

I voted for consensual. I value both "safe" and "sane" but believe them to be relative. With some subs, an outsider would look at what we do and conclude we're both insane and unsafe. What this outsider could not argue is that it was consensual.

My subs consent to submit to me and, when they do, I consent to accept responsibility for their well-being. In order for me to discharge my responsibilities, I have to do what is safe and sane for them at the time we are doing it. Catalina's difficulties provide and example of how people can change. What works well one time might not work at all the next time. My responsibility is to recognize that fact.

Good topic. Thanks.

Bill

 

[JMohegan]

These choices are subjective and up to the individual for interpretation.

To paraphrase Fury:
What's sane to me, might not be to someone else and vise versa. Who determines who and what is sane? Answer: Ideally, both parties involved.

What's safe to me, might not be to someone else and blah blah. Who determines who and what is safe? Answer: Ideally, see above.

Even consent is subjective. Is it implied consent? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then have you not implied consent to certain things? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then you have negotiated and consented to certain behaviors and activities... unless you stop and renegotiate before any new thing arises. Sometimes though, inspiration occurs in the middle of an emotional event and there's no time to negotiate. You rely on being safe and sane (whatever that means to both parties) and with someone who is also, to determine the consent at that moment and whether and how far to proceed, at that moment.

I can't see any answer that is more right (for lack of a better phrase) than another. I know what's crazy and hazardous for me and what I won't agree to. I've done things that, I believe were crazy and unsafe and that I really didn't consent to - in the moment, sort of speak because I consented to be part of a relationship at the beginning and in the whole.

For whatever it's worth...

I'd say that's worth a lot, especially the part about there being no answer more right than another, and most notably because you make a critically important point about consent.

Consent is not a black and white issue in many contexts. It is often, as you say, subjective. And this is something that is crucial for people exploring the lifestyle to understand.

 

[BeachGurl2]

What concerns me more is your belief that someone can be trusted to read another in terms of what is safe for them as long as they are considered emotionally healthy by the submissive. Unless they are a damn good mind reader, that can never be guaranteed or relied on, and once again, given we are all individuals with individual reactions to particular acts and situations, many which may be triggered by things even the submissive is unaware of until the moment it happens, it cannot be relied on someone else can know how you are experiencing something they are doing to you unless you can communicate it to them in a way they understand, and believe, and then can be trusted to acknowledge and respect. It is also true that many do not suffer the negative effects until after the scene, sometimes a day later. Many a sub has been caught in dangerous or unhealthy situations because they bought the theory the Dom knew what was happening for them and what was right for them.

I'm not talking about being a mind reader in any way, shape or form. I'm talking about being able to read whether an act and situation is to be carried out safely. I'm talking about the ability to understand that the other person is consenting. I'm talking about the ability to make SOUND decisions about activities. None of the activities that many of us choose to do are inherently safe - quite the opposite is true. When I choose to consent to being choked or whipped, if I'm with someone who isn't entirely sane, I'm putting myself in even greater danger. Communication is of the utmost importance from both sides of the coin - no matter which of the 3 we deem most important here. No one is a mind reader and no one should expect someone to just 'know' what they need or think. I didn't think my post implied that was what I meant, but I hope this cleared any misunderstanding.

To go even further into what you're saying above, Cat, even when you've consented, the same can happen as to the delayed reactions. Your consenting doesn't stop your response. And no matter which of the 3 you chose, in the situation you've given, there isn't one of them that would keep things from stopping as necessary because all 3 of them lead to the same place ultimately. Safe: in the above mentioned example, it would be unsafe to continue or to have another session when someone is or has reacted that way until the situation has been resolved. Consensual: once the reaction begins, consent can and should be removed. Sane: someone who is emotionally sound would not continue a scene should the above happen. And I think that if you examine everything that could happen, you could give the example as to how each of the 3 would respond to it.

The bottom line for me is that if I am with someone sane then I believe that the rest will be able to fall into place, usually through communication. I don't believe that the OP had in mind that choosing which of the 3 you would choose would exclude everything else that should be there, such as communication. I think that many of the posts here have assumed that each of the 3 items would operate in a vacuum. If that is in fact the case, I don't think you could choose just one of them - in fact, I think that most of us would agree that this is a discussion that ultimately is moot because those of us who are experienced would never choose to play with anyone if all 3 of the above things were not there. We each have our own definitions of what those 3 things entail and that leads us to make a choice each time.

As for the discussion about abuse, I used it as an example because it is something I know about first hand. I didn't want to use an example of something that I had no knowledge of. Believe me, I am well versed in what the courts do with abusive situations.

Final thing that makes me choose sane over the other 2: you can walk into a situation that looks safe and you can give your consent to play. If the person you are playing with is not sane, then neither of the first two matter because they may or may not remain present.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I have the capacity to behave in a way that reflects healthy reasoning, sound judgment, and good sense.

Several people have said that sane is subjective, but to me, this is the very definition of sane in regards to the discussion we're having. Which is exactly why I stated what I did earlier.

But have you ever wanted to keep going, yet noticed something about the breathing, color of the skin, timbre of your partner's voice, etc. that made you conclude that continuing would not be a good idea? Ever stopped, not because you had an orgasm or heard the safeword, but simply because you felt it was the right thing to do for the sake of your partner, or the partnership itself, or even just to avoid having to give aftercare for the next three weeks?

When I was talking about the ability to 'read' a situation, this was exactly what I was referring to. NOT the ability to mind read.

 

[CutieMouse]

*sneaking back into the thread, to comment that no one answer was considered "better" than another when phrasing the question, or forming the poll...*

 

[A Desert Rose]

*sneaking back into the thread, to comment that no one answer was considered "better" than another when phrasing the question, or forming the poll...*

And I never inferred that you did, because obviously it's my statement you are referring to. In fact, I don't infer. Inferring in this case would be passive/agressive and I don't do that. I state.

I made a simple statement. Read into it whatever you wish to. But remember that YOU are doing the reading into.

 

[CutieMouse]

And I never inferred that you did, because obviously it's my statement you are referring to. In fact, I don't infer. Inferring in this case would be passive/agressive and I don't do that. I state.

I made a simple statement. Read into it whatever you wish to. But remember that YOU are doing the reading into.

Sigh.

ADR- my comment was not meant to single you out. In fact, I wasn't even making the comment as a direct response to any post you made.

What actually caught my eye was JM's comment about no answer being more right than the other, and it occured to me that the thread was wide open to the interpritation that one of the three possibilities, cound be considered more important/better/whatever than the others- which was not my intent.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Sigh.

ADR- my comment was not meant to single you out. In fact, I wasn't even making the comment as a direct response to any post you made.

What actually caught my eye was JM's comment about no answer being more right than the other, and it occured to me that the thread was wide open to the interpritation that one of the three possibilities, cound be considered more important/better/whatever than the others- which was not my intent.

*sigh*
It might not have been your intent, but read the posts... this is what a debate becomes. People post their views (which they believe in, hence, they believe they are 'right') and then they are countered by others with a differing view (which they believe in and hence, believe they are 'right').

I can't see any answer that is more right (for lack of a better phrase) than another.

How many votes have you had for each one of the three options? Don't you believe that those who made a choice and voted, contend they are 'right' in their choice? Otherwise, why vote, why post a poll?

As an aside: I didn't vote. I believe that all three options are inextricably bound (pardon the pun) to each other.

 

[FurryFury]

These choices are subjective and up to the individual for interpretation.

To paraphrase Fury:
What's sane to me, might not be to someone else and vise versa. Who determines who and what is sane? Answer: Ideally, both parties involved.

What's safe to me, might not be to someone else and blah blah. Who determines who and what is safe? Answer: Ideally, see above.

Even consent is subjective. Is it implied consent? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then have you not implied consent to certain things? If you agree to be in a particular relationship, then you have negotiated and consented to certain behaviors and activities... unless you stop and renegotiate before any new thing arises. Sometimes though, inspiration occurs in the middle of an emotional event and there's no time to negotiate. You rely on being safe and sane (whatever that means to both parties) and with someone who is also, to determine the consent at that moment and whether and how far to proceed, at that moment.

I can't see any answer that is more right (for lack of a better phrase) than another. I know what's crazy and hazardous for me and what I won't agree to. I've done things that, I believe were crazy and unsafe and that I really didn't consent to - in the moment, sort of speak because I consented to be part of a relationship at the beginning and in the whole.

For whatever it's worth...

You totally understood what I was saying here and that's pretty rare in this world.



I agree with you on all points.

Oh and for the record, I trust the relative sanity of my husband and online Dom, JM. If I didn't, I wouldn't be "playing" with them. I'm also comfortable with our brand of safety and consent. However sanity is really one of the most elusive and subjective qualities in the human animal, IMO.

*chuckles*

Fury

 

[SpectreT]

re: "implied consent" or grey areas...

Maybe I'm a boring guy, but I don't believe in implied anything. If it's not explicit, unequivocal, verified, and perfectly clear, it just plain isn't so.

I've had too much "wriggle room" and "loopholes" pulled on me in other areas of life. I don't let grey areas happen anywhere I can help it.

edit to add:

That doesn't always mean things go right; look at the two situations I outlined earlier from my own experience. Both of those were separate, clear, explicit communications of consent, where things could not proceed according to plan.

 

[Shankara20]

*sigh*
It might not have been your intent, but read the posts... this is what a debate becomes. People post their views (which they believe in, hence, they believe they are 'right') and then they are countered by others with a differing view (which they believe in and hence, believe they are 'right').

I can't see any answer that is more right (for lack of a better phrase) than another.

How many votes have you had for each one of the three options? Don't you believe that those who made a choice and voted, contend they are 'right' in their choice? Otherwise, why vote, why post a poll?

As an aside: I didn't vote. I believe that all three options are inextricably bound (pardon the pun) to each other.

ADR - this might not be relevant to your post, and I might have misread it as well, but I do want to say that I consider SSC a package deal for me. They all must be addressed by me as best I can. I selected my answer here after long consideration but I have no concept of it being "right", it was just a reflection of what I selected at that moment. I find the comments from others who selected something else very interesting. I have learned a lot from this discussion.

I have taken part is long discussions about SSC in the past and have seen where it can go. This thread looks to be headed in that same general direction - but time will tell.

I generally don't get involved in many complicated discussions because I don't hold most of my beliefs as being the "right" belief and don't really enjoy defending them. When I am not posting silly pics and the lyrics of songs better off long forgotten I step into discussions because I feel I might have some fun with a few friends, add a point of view from my experience and to try to learn something for myself. I very seldom consider myself "right" and am often, in fact, mistaken.

This is just a little ramble and not meant to be anything more then my POV.