Kittenplay Forum now at http://kittenplay.net

Saberrah · Senior Member

Safe, Sane and Consentual

Jennaia · Member

You are right. 100% right.
The power that a Dom has over a sub is merely a gift of the sub towards the Dom. But it is a gift which must be obtained every day for a new. Every minute, every moment because of trust.
Sadly I saw a lot of relations in the interwebs, and especially in SL-Gor, where wannabe allmighty Doms thougt they could do everything to their subs. But the sadest thing is, that there are mentally not so firm sub out there, subs which are very emotional. And such subs are really messed up by the named Doms.
Being a sub doesn't mean you give up your human rights.

Saberrah · Senior Member

Thank you, Jennaia! Yes, many subs are emotionally timid, and it's a tad sad that their first learning experiences regarding the lifestyle is through the "all powerful goreans" (I myself had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a Gor dom when I was first taking my steps into the bdsm lifestyle a few short years ago, so I'm highly biased against goreans; and no it wasn't on sl).
So many subs, and even doms, use the net as a way of learning more about the lifestyle, and sl is a fairly good way of testing the water. It just frustrates me that so many of the "doms" online, have no real knowledge of what it is they're masquerading around as, and think that their self appointed titles gives them the right to treat subs as useless objects. I know, I'm being highly unfair to doms in general, because there really are great ones out there (like my Owner =^.^=) and there are many subs online that are highly manipulative and just want the sex.
There are fakes on both sides, the key is learning to tell the wanna-be from the lifestyler. Be willing to talk first, to learn, understand what it is that the other is needing and wanting. Never ever jump right into a dom/sub relationship before you understand what it will entail for you, as a dom or a sub. And always remember, you can walk away (or if you're through sl, there's the mute button too =^.^=)

MissAbsinthe · Senior Member

I totally agree with both your points. Numerous times I have come across bdsm relationships where the Master thinks he can forever make the submissive/slave do exactly what he desires after he gets the initial consent, this is regardless of the limits the sub/slave may have. And often yes the slave/sub is emotionally timid and gets pushed into just agreeing and giving up the consensual part of the relationship.
Masters are often fond of telling me "Think hard before you pick who you will give yourself to, as it is the first and last decision you'll ever have to make." And then another one they were fond of was "There are NO limits, and slave only has TWO choices in a bdsm relationship, one is who they start the relationship with, and the second is the right to terminate the relationship."

Not only that but browse collarme and how many Masters/Dominants will you see who say "I am looking for a no limits tpe 24/7 slave/slut?" They might as well go out and buy a blow up doll, as thats clearly what they are really seeking.

It does lead me to wonder though, perhaps the big difference in safe sane and consensual is maybe a difference in submissive and slave. Submissives always it seems have the choice, and are always secretly ontop of the relationship. But many Slaves when going into a tpe relationship, are expected to give up many of these rights, simply by being a slave rather than a sub. I think the largest difference is no limits. An individual who puts themselves into a no limits relationship is asking for trouble, limits are natural and there for basic levels of safety . I wish people would stop assuming that just because I am a Slave and in a tpe, that I must have no limits ;p

DaddysTouch · Veteran Member

I agree that it's dumb of many doms to think they can order subs around who they barely know just because they are (supposedly) a dom and the other a sub. Usually I tend to leave things be and let the sub initiate anything D/s between us (quite ironic I suppose) - that way I know that she wants and consents to being controlled in some fashion. Lately, however, I have been more assertive with some girls I've met and with good results. Certainly I talked to them beforehand, but I started things without waiting for signals to do so, and in one case I did this quite quickly - in the second major IM conversation. I think it can be a bit hit and miss. I'd never be so naive as to message a sub giving her orders (unless perhaps she put in her profile that this is what she wanted), but I can be quick as well as slow, and act without prompting as well as with it. In these two recent cases it worked out fine, but it's possible I could misjudge and offend someone.

I have to say, regarding safe, sane and consensual, that I actually don't appreciate the focus on the safe and sane parts. Consent, to me, is the only important bit across the board. Now, I've mentioned above about giving orders without explicit licence to do so, but this isn't really an issue of consent, more of courtesy and social skills. After all, an order need not be followed. If you don't like something a dom says online, you can just tell him to piss off and/or block him. That's not to say it doesn't make him a dickhead, but it's not really about consent per se. If you ask me, if two people consent to something, there's nothing we should tell them they shouldn't do together. Yet some people seem intent on demanding that they be 'safe' and 'sane', even if they consent to be otherwise. If two people want to take drugs and play, that's between them. If two people want to play dangerous asphyxiation games, that's their choice. Not ours. Certainly, I'd tell people to think about these things carefully, to be certain it's what they want to do and to try, but if dangerous things get you off and you accept the risks, that's your decision.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Let me pose your statement in the form of hypothetical situations to give example to the flaws. If two people consent to something that doesn't necessarily make it right as human beings.

Dom and sub want to do knife play, neither has experience. Would it be safe or sane to go on and try it out, knowing next to nothing about safety? That in itself is far from sane. Even one hundred percent consenting adults taking this kind of irresponsibility into their hands spells disaster. The chances of screwing up are much higher without considering safety, and in the eyes of the law either safe or unsafe you're looking at serious charges. Wouldn't you want the numbers on your side to cut down on accidents?

Offense and ill judgement aren't excuses here. As human beings we have to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves: "am I being safe, have I taken any precautions to cut down the chances of this potentially harming someone else who has given complete control to me?" or "do I see a situation where two people who I may or may not know are making bad decisions?" Its not our place to tell them how to play, but if things might go beyond play and cross the fine line of abuse in some cases...

I may have taken your statements way out of context here, but there are serious consequences to consider and safety in some cases is life and death. If truly dangerous and life-threatening things get somebody off there is a point where anybody as a human being should step in.

Faete · Senior Member

I wanted to make a comment regarding limits.

When I first met Master, I had many many limits! After working with him through the things which scared or I just didn't like, I now have none. HOWEVER, I am also married now, and the fact that I have no limits applies only to my Master and me. I see having no limits as more of a trust thing.

Basically, if something were to happen and Master and me weren't together anymore, it isn't as though I would be able to start a new relationship with someone and have no limits. I have no limits with MASTER. And ONLY with HIM. If he were to lend me to another person to play with there would indeed also be limits in that situation as well. Not nessasarily from me, but Master doesn't want me doing some things with other people.

A lot of people assume that because I am in a relationship with no limits, I am asking for trouble.. But the truth of the matter is, it is very unreasonable and quite against all that we have worked for if Master were to seriously harm me in any way. After being with him for over five years now, I trust him to never cause any permanent harm to me. If he were to do something terrible, and (for example) break my leg (which I know he would never ever do), then who would be the one servicing him? Not me. How could I on a broken limb?

I also want to point out that just because I have no limits does not mean I have no safeword. People get confused and think that there's no way I can have need for a safeword if I have no limits. Of course that's wrong! There are always things that could go WRONG during a scene. Master has no intentions of damaging me in a permanent way, so of course if something is causing an injury or MAY cause an injury (such as losing feeling in the hands..) then it's our jobs as slaves or submissives to tell our Master/Mistress/Dominant so that we can take proper care of ourselves, and ensure we can take care of our Dominants in turn. It doesn't mean that I won't do the activity I am involved in, it usually just means that an adjustment needs to be made before continuing.

I hope that made sense. Sorry it's a lot of text! :)

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: i could go into a long explation, but i will sum up what i would say in one line (so you dont have to spend 2hr trying to guess what my spelling says lol)
"If you dont have trust. You dont have anything"

DaddysTouch · Veteran Member

"Dom and sub want to do knife play, neither has experience. Would it be safe or sane to go on and try it out, knowing next to nothing about safety?"

I didn't say such things were safe or sane: I said there are things which are neither safe nor sane which people shouldn't be ostracized for engaging in when that is what they want.

"Even one hundred percent consenting adults taking this kind of irresponsibility into their hands spells disaster. The chances of screwing up are much higher without considering safety"

So? I didn't say it was safe. That's the whole point.

"and in the eyes of the law either safe or unsafe you're looking at serious charges."

Laws are often stupid and illegitimate - illegality of an action does not equal immorality of an action. Pretty much any form of full-on BDSM is illegal in Britain so it's not as if dangerous BDSM is illegal where as safe BDSM is not. And even if that were the case, going to jail is as much a risk as losing a limb or dying - if they can accept the latter then why not the former too?

"Wouldn't you want the numbers on your side to cut down on accidents?"

If I was playing with knives? Maybe. Or maybe not. That's up to me and my partner, nobody else. And it's up to everyone else and their partner, not me. If other people want to do dangerous things that I wouldn't dream of doing, so what? They're adults, they can make their own decisions. They don't need me or anyone else to be their mother with a gun. If someone gets hurt, that's all them. Maybe they'll have no regrets, or maybe they will, but it was their decision either way.

"As human beings we have to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves: "am I being safe, have I taken any precautions to cut down the chances of this potentially harming someone else who has given complete control to me?""

Depends. Certainly, that's how I think for myself. But I don't necessarily expect others to do so. If a sub has given complete control on the understanding that she will be kept safe, then yes that's how it should work. But if they have a dynamic where they both agree to do dangerous things then that's fine too.

""do I see a situation where two people who I may or may not know are making bad decisions?" Its not our place to tell them how to play, but if things might go beyond play and cross the fine line of abuse in some cases..."

If both partners consent then it's hardly abuse.

"If truly dangerous and life-threatening things get somebody off there is a point where anybody as a human being should step in."

Why? If somebody's idea of pursuing their own hapiness is to have someone else open an artery, well I think that's pretty ****ing weird and really dangerous and I'd never do it, but they know it's dangerous and they want to do it anyways, so good on them for doing what makes them happy.

The_Sequel · Veteran Member

I completely agree with DaddysTouch. I mean at the end of it all we are talking about adults, whom we assume to know the risks of what they're doing. If they don't...well I'm sure that's some form of psychosis which needs to be treated separately. In the end, people are going to do what they really want to do. If some guy really wants to hammer a nail through his junk, however stupid or amazingly strange we think it is, he's going to do it. We just have to assume that he knows and has researched the risks inherent in what he's doing. And if not...well I subscribe to the theory of "survival of the fittest". It's just a modern human version of "thinning out the herd".

Saberrah · Senior Member

Safe and sane doesn't mean not doing something. I means making sure that you know what it is that you're going to do and to make sure you're taking every precaution so that if things do go wrong, you'll be able to help fix it.
If you were doing knife play, the safe and sane thing to do would be to make sure you have researched as much as you can on it, keep a medical kit with you, and a phone near by. You wouldn't just start slicing away without even the med kit nearby right?
Safe and sane mean thinking the risks through, and preparing for them even if you hope that it won't be needed.
If you were going to do a bit of asphyxiation on someone, you should at the very least know CPR, and have that phone handy encase you went too far.
As I said, it doesn't mean not doing something, or telling others "Oh, you can't do that cause, blah blah blah," it means think it through, prepare, and if you're smart, research and/or take a class on that subject.

I apologize if I repeated myself a dozen times...I just woke up not even ten mins ago =^.^=

-- Edited by Saberrah at 21:14, 2008-10-12

w1ntermute · Senior Member

DaddysTouch wrote:
"Dom and sub want to do knife play, neither has experience. Would it be safe or sane to go on and try it out, knowing next to nothing about safety?"

I didn't say such things were safe or sane: I said there are things which are neither safe nor sane which people shouldn't be ostracized for engaging in when that is what they want.

"Even one hundred percent consenting adults taking this kind of irresponsibility into their hands spells disaster. The chances of screwing up are much higher without considering safety"

So? I didn't say it was safe. That's the whole point.

"and in the eyes of the law either safe or unsafe you're looking at serious charges."

Laws are often stupid and illegitimate - illegality of an action does not equal immorality of an action. Pretty much any form of full-on BDSM is illegal in Britain so it's not as if dangerous BDSM is illegal where as safe BDSM is not. And even if that were the case, going to jail is as much a risk as losing a limb or dying - if they can accept the latter then why not the former too?

"Wouldn't you want the numbers on your side to cut down on accidents?"

If I was playing with knives? Maybe. Or maybe not. That's up to me and my partner, nobody else. And it's up to everyone else and their partner, not me. If other people want to do dangerous things that I wouldn't dream of doing, so what? They're adults, they can make their own decisions. They don't need me or anyone else to be their mother with a gun. If someone gets hurt, that's all them. Maybe they'll have no regrets, or maybe they will, but it was their decision either way.

"As human beings we have to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves: "am I being safe, have I taken any precautions to cut down the chances of this potentially harming someone else who has given complete control to me?""

Depends. Certainly, that's how I think for myself. But I don't necessarily expect others to do so. If a sub has given complete control on the understanding that she will be kept safe, then yes that's how it should work. But if they have a dynamic where they both agree to do dangerous things then that's fine too.

""do I see a situation where two people who I may or may not know are making bad decisions?" Its not our place to tell them how to play, but if things might go beyond play and cross the fine line of abuse in some cases..."

If both partners consent then it's hardly abuse.

"If truly dangerous and life-threatening things get somebody off there is a point where anybody as a human being should step in."

Why? If somebody's idea of pursuing their own hapiness is to have someone else open an artery, well I think that's pretty ****ing weird and really dangerous and I'd never do it, but they know it's dangerous and they want to do it anyways, so good on them for doing what makes them happy.

We can go back and forth on this all day... Yes, some are just plain stupid. Many laws are put in place to protect others from careless or willful harm.

I'm not saying that people aren't going to do stupid things, even if you tell them not to. What I was getting at is that willful disregard for safety and sanity is disrespecting your partner. Yes, even if there is consent. Some people may like edge play too much for their own well being, and getting permanently damaged from such things is not worth it, ever.

You can argue on the side of happiness all you want, but I can always point out mental illness that makes people happy only when they commit atrocious acts on others. That is not to say everybody participating in edge play is sick. That is to say, with knowing full well the dangers and risks involved in your play and disregarding them for pleasure, you're risking you and your partner's safety.

"They don't need me or anyone else to be their mother with a gun. If someone gets hurt, that's all them. Maybe they'll have no regrets, or maybe they will, but it was their decision either way."

Obviously I'm not advocating that everybody be other people's nannies to tell them when they're being stupid. Of course it will be their decision either way. Thats why there is such a great responsibility to be informed on the safety and sanity that should be involved in your play. If somebody wants to inform someone else about what they're doing they have as much a right to do so as the person commiting the action has of ignoring them.

"I said there are things which are neither safe nor sane which people shouldn't be ostracized for engaging in when that is what they want."

But where do YOU draw the line? If one person says there will be a UFO that will carry a few other people away to crazy moon land, should they all drink the kool-aid? They're consenting.

This is why there are some basic guidelines within our laws that should probably be followed. I'm not saying every law is correct. I'd be the last person to say that.
I have a problem with just consent, because without learning as much as you possibly can about what you're going to do there may be much higher ignorance or naivetee on one side. If both partners consent it CAN be abuse. Thats why there are spousal abuse laws that disregard so-called consent in many cases in the US. Some people love their partner so much that they're even so much as psychologically damaged in justifying the abuse, regardless of a BDSM relationship.

If I know something is going to possibly cause nerve damage and my partner really REALLY wants to do it... is it right that they may or may not know the dangers of the action?

MissAbsinthe · Senior Member

paw has the coolest user avatar on the site! *stare*

I am just amazed by how this debate is going down! is brilliant!

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Well regardless of the debate, the artist who painted the self- portrait is pretty awesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ducreux

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: there is only 1 line in all of this that i have a problem with (as it is written)
also i am going to play a tad bit of devils advitcoate.
(warring i can come off as a bit of an ass at times)

"If truly dangerous and life-threatening things get somebody off there is a point where anybody as a human being should step in."

lets see here things that are life threatening:
1. sex
2. childbirth
3. breathing
4. sky diving

ok i could go on forever with this list.
now i feel that i need to explain why some of this list are life threatening.
lets take sex first.
wile most of the std out there are not going to kill you there are many that would.
now childbirth.
again kinda simple to understand how this can kill you.
now for breathing.
with all the toxins that are floating around in the air it makes me wonder why we havent all dropped dead already.

ok now back up to the title of this thread.
Safe
this is nothing more then perseption. what one person feels is safe another my see as totaly coo coo.
sane
gee do i realy need to go into this word?

as i said before alot of what i said was just for the point of being devils advocate and by no means confers how i truly feel.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

luannablue wrote:

M: there is only 1 line in all of this that i have a problem with (as it is written)
also i am going to play a tad bit of devils advitcoate.
(warring i can come off as a bit of an ass at times)

"If truly dangerous and life-threatening things get somebody off there is a point where anybody as a human being should step in."

lets see here things that are life threatening:
1. sex
2. childbirth
3. breathing
4. sky diving

ok i could go on forever with this list.
now i feel that i need to explain why some of this list are life threatening.
lets take sex first.
wile most of the std out there are not going to kill you there are many that would.
now childbirth.
again kinda simple to understand how this can kill you.
now for breathing.
with all the toxins that are floating around in the air it makes me wonder why we havent all dropped dead already.

ok now back up to the title of this thread.
Safe
this is nothing more then perseption. what one person feels is safe another my see as totaly coo coo.
sane
gee do i realy need to go into this word?

as i said before alot of what i said was just for the point of being devils advocate and by no means confers how i truly feel.

Allow me to straw man your straw man.

"now i feel that i need to explain why some of this list are life threatening.
lets take sex first.
wile most of the std out there are not going to kill you there are many that would.
now childbirth.
again kinda simple to understand how this can kill you.
now for breathing.
with all the toxins that are floating around in the air it makes me wonder why we havent all dropped dead already."

Yes, stepping out of your house in the morning can and will kill people. OH NO!

I totally understand coming off as an ass. I do the same quite frequently. No offense either way ;)

The point of this comment is that if you take precautions and say... wear a ****ing condom, have birth in an equipped hospital and breathe away from cigarettes and people contagious with airborn illnesses you can greatly increase your survival.

Now the comparison: If you took no time to research the risks you will probably catch an STD, give birth to a kid in the back seat of a car and or chain smoke lucky strikes.

If you disregard the research and know better, you're taking risks and SOMETIMES thats ok. SOMETIMES its unavoidable. BUT take calculated risks at the very least.

Carry on.

edit: let me add that there can be variability within the definition of sanity. I'm definitely not a model of sane perfection, but there is a point at which it reaches something that is wilfully destructive and negligent.

I'm going to also say that picture of you is ADORABLE, kitty :)

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 07:00, 2008-10-15

Saberrah · Senior Member

The question isn't "what is safe and sane", it's "how do you keep your play safe and sane". No matter what play you're into, and that can be so many things, and not all of it will make sense to someone else, the goal is to make sure that you yourself is knowledgeable in what it is you're doing. If you're interested in rope bondage....wouldn't you read up on it as much as you can, and possible take a class on it? And wouldn't the learning of even more interesting and involved ways to tie that rope make you all the more interested in it? It should be the same for whatever type of play you're into. Learn what you can. Anticipate risks, and prepare for them. No mater what it is you're doing, be knowledgeable about it.

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: taking the impulseiveness of todays culture. they dont strike me as the reasearch type.
this i see as a bad thing. every thing is "NOW! NOW!NOW!". people just dont take the time to learn what they are getting into.
and to tell the truth that kinda erks me a bit.
i always thought it was common sence to learn atleast something about what you are about to to beforhand. but it would seam that most people today dont bother or are too lazy to do this (speking about the younger people in general).

all this about learning about things befor hand maybe common sence to us, but what we have to realize is that its not to alot of people out there (yes i know i repeat myself alot).
i guess my point would be that its nice to talk about it here but how does that help anyone else but us?
by nature it pains me to see people get in over their head (for any reason).

ps its the point of a devils advecate to miss read what people say hehehe (for thoies that didnt know)

pps feel free to come into the chat room we help mod (info can be found under the camfrog post in of topic) i do much better debating when i dont have to think about typing and spelling lol

Faete · Senior Member

luannablue wrote:

M: taking the impulseiveness of todays culture. they dont strike me as the reasearch type.
this i see as a bad thing. every thing is "NOW! NOW!NOW!". people just dont take the time to learn what they are getting into.
and to tell the truth that kinda erks me a bit.
i always thought it was common sence to learn atleast something about what you are about to to beforhand. but it would seam that most people today dont bother or are too lazy to do this (speking about the younger people in general).

Speaking for the younger generation, I don't think this is altogether true, or even fair to say. Yes, there will always be people in *any* age range who don't research what they are getting into, BDSM or no, BUT most of the people I have encountered are more than interested in researching things first. I have yet to meet many people in my generation who won't research whatever they are getting into first.

Especially with BDSM. BDSM (and many many other activities) can be dangerous, and most of the young people I know realize this and seek out instruction in whatever subject they are interested in.

I think you will find that there are also plenty of people who are older who don't like to research are have the "instant gratification" mentality as well.

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: i am speaking in general terms here. if were to only count the people i have come in contact with. then i also would have to say the most do look into thing befor they start on them.
but in a case like this we must also look at the people that we dont know or talk with.

also we have to look at the amount of research that people do.

Faete · Senior Member

luannablue wrote:

but in a case like this we must also look at the people that we dont know or talk with.

If you don't know or talk with them, how do you know how much research they do? I am not meaning any offence, it just sounds like generalizing to me..

w1ntermute · Senior Member

Just a quick reply before dinner... Its not generalizing if its just concern for people you don't know. Of course 100% of them are not going to be careless in one way or another, and same goes for the other way...

That would be the opposite of generalizing I'd say. We're talking about possibilities of people who do or don't research, care, know etc.

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: ok here is a person (i use this term lightly) i will use as an example (this person also made it to my dont let breed list).

ok a bunch of us were sitting in a chat room (camfrog) one night when this guy came in with a **** cage on.
he wanted to know if we had any ideas how to get it off. (wait for it)
after the normal round of questions he goes on to explain the story. (this is para phrasied mind you)

he first admits to us that he has cheated on his gf a few times and that she found out.
then goes on to say the she put it on him last night. then in the morning left (with the key) for a 2 week vacation.
and wants to know how to get it (the **** cage) off.
there is a little more to it but with my typing ands spelling ill let you off the hook with that lol

now i know what our responce to him was. what would yours be?
feel free to insult him as many ways as you think you can.

after a few replies i will post some of what we said.

-- Edited by luannablue at 09:15, 2008-10-16

w1ntermute · Senior Member

I think its a funny story, luannablue, but it seems like we're steering more and more off-topic of the original discussion. I don't see how some idiot with a **** cage on, trying to get it off really has to do with what we've been talking about. No matter how much I'd love to laugh at him.

This really doesn't have much to do with safet or sanity, except in a mostly humorous light. I'd hazard a guess that he may have done something vaguely dangerous to get it off, but I'd check that off as an entry into the Darwin Awards. As far as consent goes, sure he may not have consent from his girlfriend/Domme/whatever, but its not really in the same situation as we've been talking about.

More responses to previous replies when I wake up more.

->edited for clarity <-

-- Edited by w1ntermute at 14:52, 2008-10-16

Saberrah · Senior Member

Hmm....Yes, people do some crazy things, I think we have already established that. But the point that a few of us are trying to make is "Use your head. Learn. Be open." By the amount of underage users on this site, I'd say that this is just one of their many ways of trying to learn more about what it is they're into; and if they're reading this page? That has at the very least planted a seed, making them think about what is acceptable and what some consequences could be if they decided to disregard common sense to be the "big bad dom" or "manipulative sub". It's up to them in the end of just how they want that seed to grow, but at the very least it has made them stop and think.

luannablue · Veteran Member

M: i guess i was using him as an example of just how stupid people are out there.
(and there are at least 5-6 ways he was just plain dumb) and as an example of what happens if you dont research.

on a side note i felt worse for the locksmith he ended up calling then for him.

DaddysTouch · Veteran Member

Saberrah wrote:

Safe and sane doesn't mean not doing something. I means making sure that you know what it is that you're going to do and to make sure you're taking every precaution so that if things do go wrong, you'll be able to help fix it.

This wasn't really my assertion, but I should say that I have heard people tell others, and had people tell me, not to do things because they are dangerous, even if precautions are taken. For instance, I was told explicitly not to try breath play - even if I did everything I could to make it as safe as possible. However, as I say, this isn't the only view I take issue with. I also disagree with the view that precautions should be taken and that to do otherwise is wrong. If you, as one of the participants, and your fellow participant(s) value safety greater than the alternative, then for you the best thing to do would indeed be to take precautions. But, if you don't want to take precautions, that decision is yours. Consider this: you don't need to engage in any BDSM activity. You don't need to engage in knife play or breath play or rope play. Yet we accept a certain level of risk in order to do these things on the basis that, to us, the benefits of these activities outweigh the risks - in your case, and to a large degree in my case, the level of risk is mitigated somewhat by various precautions, but it still exists. What then, is the difference between this decision (taking a level of risk over no risk) and the decision not to take some or any precautions i.e. trading greater benefit according to the tastes of those specific actors e.g. a bigger rush due to greater danger, for greater risk?

Saberrah wrote:

If you were doing knife play, the safe and sane thing to do would be to make sure you have researched as much as you can on it, keep a medical kit with you, and a phone near by. You wouldn't just start slicing away without even the med kit nearby right?

I'd do something like what you describe, but what I myself do is really irrelevant. I shut my windows when I leave the house, but I don't expect others to do the same. Maybe I think that's stupid, but I wouldn't ostracise people who did so and I certainly wouldn't make it illegal or regard it as a moral requirement that they do as I do.

-------------------

w1ntermute wrote:

Yes, some are just plain stupid. Many laws are put in place to protect others from careless or willful harm.

The two are hardly mutually exclusive. Every tyrant believes himself to be benevolent.

w1ntermute wrote:

I'm not saying that people aren't going to do stupid things, even if you tell them not to. What I was getting at is that willful disregard for safety and sanity is disrespecting your partner. Yes, even if there is consent. Some people may like edge play too much for their own well being, and getting permanently damaged from such things is not worth it, ever.

How do you know what it is worth to them? I'm fairly sure I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my toes to become a billionaire. Are my own personal tastes and preferences in this regard wrong? You might disagree, sure, but in a way in which you believe that I am wrong, immoral for that opinion? How is that any different to feeling that my decision to pay a lot of money for a piece of art you don't regard as worth that cost? Would you feel the same in that instance?

w1ntermute wrote:

You can argue on the side of happiness all you want, but I can always point out mental illness that makes people happy only when they commit atrocious acts on others. That is not to say everybody participating in edge play is sick. That is to say, with knowing full well the dangers and risks involved in your play and disregarding them for pleasure, you're risking you and your partner's safety.

Mental illness can make people harm others, true. But I don't argue that if an action results in happiness it is therefore legitimate. I argue simply that if both parties consent to something then it's none of anyone else's business. Also, surely not everyone who wants to dangerous things has a mental illness. Everything we do carries a certain level of risk, are we mentally ill? If so, and if mental illness is grounds for making the actions of that person illegitimate, then how can anything we do be justified?

w1ntermute wrote:

Obviously I'm not advocating that everybody be other people's nannies to tell them when they're being stupid. Of course it will be their decision either way. Thats why there is such a great responsibility to be informed on the safety and sanity that should be involved in your play. If somebody wants to inform someone else about what they're doing they have as much a right to do so as the person commiting the action has of ignoring them.

Sure, what I object to is the way in which people are looked down upon and rejected socially for doing 'dangerous' things. If you want to tell someone the risks, how they could be safer if they wanted to, then fine. But I don't think it's good form to tell people they're irresponsible or look down on them for having different tastes.

w1ntermute wrote:

But where do YOU draw the line? If one person says there will be a UFO that will carry a few other people away to crazy moon land, should they all drink the kool-aid? They're consenting.

Those are two unrelated questions, are they not? Where I personally draw the line has no relation to what other people should do. The first question is hard to answer. I couldn't say there's any particular line I draw regarding safety. It depends on the situation, the person and so on. I wouldn't, for instance, engage in blood letting. But I would potentially (and have) play whilst one or more partners was drunk or on drugs. I keep a first aid kit on hand usually, but I've done breath play with only a basic knowledge of it. The important thing for me is that in every case both me and my partner consented to what was happening. In the second question, those people should do whatever they want. The example doesn't really give enough detail for me to come to a conclusion on the person making these claims. If he's lying to these people then, depending on what that results in e.g. them giving him money, sleeping with him etc, then he may be defrauding them, raping them etc.

w1ntermute wrote:

If I know something is going to possibly cause nerve damage and my partner really REALLY wants to do it... is it right that they may or may not know the dangers of the action?

This is different. If you know there is a danger but she doesn't, and you get her to engage in something under the pretence that it is safe when you know better, well that's fraud.

w1ntermute · Senior Member

DaddysTouch wrote:

Saberrah wrote:

Safe and sane doesn't mean not doing something. I means making sure that you know what it is that you're going to do and to make sure you're taking every precaution so that if things do go wrong, you'll be able to help fix it.

This wasn't really my assertion, but I should say that I have heard people tell others, and had people tell me, not to do things because they are dangerous, even if precautions are taken. For instance, I was told explicitly not to try breath play - even if I did everything I could to make it as safe as possible. However, as I say, this isn't the only view I take issue with. I also disagree with the view that precautions should be taken and that to do otherwise is wrong. If you, as one of the participants, and your fellow participant(s) value safety greater than the alternative, then for you the best thing to do would indeed be to take precautions. But, if you don't want to take precautions, that decision is yours. Consider this: you don't need to engage in any BDSM activity. You don't need to engage in knife play or breath play or rope play. Yet we accept a certain level of risk in order to do these things on the basis that, to us, the benefits of these activities outweigh the risks - in your case, and to a large degree in my case, the level of risk is mitigated somewhat by various precautions, but it still exists. What then, is the difference between this decision (taking a level of risk over no risk) and the decision not to take some or any precautions i.e. trading greater benefit according to the tastes of those specific actors e.g. a bigger rush due to greater danger, for greater risk?

Saberrah wrote:

If you were doing knife play, the safe and sane thing to do would be to make sure you have researched as much as you can on it, keep a medical kit with you, and a phone near by. You wouldn't just start slicing away without even the med kit nearby right?

I'd do something like what you describe, but what I myself do is really irrelevant. I shut my windows when I leave the house, but I don't expect others to do the same. Maybe I think that's stupid, but I wouldn't ostracise people who did so and I certainly wouldn't make it illegal or regard it as a moral requirement that they do as I do.
I'm getting tired of this victimization thats being described here. Nobody is ostracizing you here. You don't have to play the victim to get your point across. We're merely making a point.
-------------------

w1ntermute wrote:

Yes, some are just plain stupid. Many laws are put in place to protect others from careless or willful harm.

The two are hardly mutually exclusive. Every tyrant believes himself to be benevolent.
Lets straw-man some more. This isn't about failing philosophy class or whinning about one tyrannical country's laws. This is about the societal laws that have been around for a very very long time which in turn have been adopted by most governments as a basis. If you want to throw out a one-liner, justify it later. I know, I know. Down with society or whatever. Lets pretend that this has been refined for centuries through many civilizations to give us a better understanding of what does and doesn't work.
w1ntermute wrote:

I'm not saying that people aren't going to do stupid things, even if you tell them not to. What I was getting at is that willful disregard for safety and sanity is disrespecting your partner. Yes, even if there is consent. Some people may like edge play too much for their own well being, and getting permanently damaged from such things is not worth it, ever.

How do you know what it is worth to them? I'm fairly sure I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my toes to become a billionaire. Are my own personal tastes and preferences in this regard wrong? You might disagree, sure, but in a way in which you believe that I am wrong, immoral for that opinion? How is that any different to feeling that my decision to pay a lot of money for a piece of art you don't regard as worth that cost? Would you feel the same in that instance?

If you're willing to sacrifice your big toe for SOMETHING it is in turn worth something to you. Paying too much for Thomas Kinkaid is not the same as placing "value" on somebody else's safety. Thanks for playing.
w1ntermute wrote:

You can argue on the side of happiness all you want, but I can always point out mental illness that makes people happy only when they commit atrocious acts on others. That is not to say everybody participating in edge play is sick. That is to say, with knowing full well the dangers and risks involved in your play and disregarding them for pleasure, you're risking you and your partner's safety.

Mental illness can make people harm others, true. But I don't argue that if an action results in happiness it is therefore legitimate. I argue simply that if both parties consent to something then it's none of anyone else's business. Also, surely not everyone who wants to dangerous things has a mental illness. Everything we do carries a certain level of risk, are we mentally ill? If so, and if mental illness is grounds for making the actions of that person illegitimate, then how can anything we do be justified?

Its not that sane people don't want to do dangerous things, it is the execution of those things, and the limit that we take them to which can cross the line.
w1ntermute wrote:

Obviously I'm not advocating that everybody be other people's nannies to tell them when they're being stupid. Of course it will be their decision either way. Thats why there is such a great responsibility to be informed on the safety and sanity that should be involved in your play. If somebody wants to inform someone else about what they're doing they have as much a right to do so as the person commiting the action has of ignoring them.

Sure, what I object to is the way in which people are looked down upon and rejected socially for doing 'dangerous' things. If you want to tell someone the risks, how they could be safer if they wanted to, then fine. But I don't think it's good form to tell people they're irresponsible or look down on them for having different tastes.

There, thats all I wanted. Being able to discuss with people the dangers, you know, just in case they weren't aware. There comes that line crossing possibility again though... If you tell somebody they're being irresponsible for doing something potentially harmful (and don't construe this as everyday activity. Most people know how to take care of themselves in those situations these days.) then its up to them to think about it or ignore it. I wouldn't be offended in the least if somebody warned me that I didn't know **** and might hurt somebody when I thought I was just going to have some fun.
w1ntermute wrote:

But where do YOU draw the line? If one person says there will be a UFO that will carry a few other people away to crazy moon land, should they all drink the kool-aid? They're consenting.

Those are two unrelated questions, are they not? Where I personally draw the line has no relation to what other people should do. The first question is hard to answer. I couldn't say there's any particular line I draw regarding safety. It depends on the situation, the person and so on. I wouldn't, for instance, engage in blood letting. But I would potentially (and have) play whilst one or more partners was drunk or on drugs. I keep a first aid kit on hand usually, but I've done breath play with only a basic knowledge of it. The important thing for me is that in every case both me and my partner consented to what was happening. In the second question, those people should do whatever they want. The example doesn't really give enough detail for me to come to a conclusion on the person making these claims. If he's lying to these people then, depending on what that results in e.g. them giving him money, sleeping with him etc, then he may be defrauding them, raping them etc.
The example was the classic cultist suicide pact. I thought it was pretty well understood as a joke reference.
w1ntermute wrote:

If I know something is going to possibly cause nerve damage and my partner really REALLY wants to do it... is it right that they may or may not know the dangers of the action?

This is different. If you know there is a danger but she doesn't, and you get her to engage in something under the pretence that it is safe when you know better, well that's fraud.

Of course that would be fraud. What I was getting at is that being naive or -thinking- you know what you're doing is just as dangerous.

Over all I want to drag this conversation back to the BDSM world and out of the high school philosophy class. This wasn't really intended to spark some kind of societal morality debate. It was supposed to give context to my views.

Saberrah · Senior Member

I really and truly don't care what it is others are into. The point you're making with telling people to "NOT" do something is valid. It's wrong to tell others if they can or can not do something. BUT, as I have said many times before, it's not a question of what is safe or sane. The true question is HOW to make your play safe and sane. Everyone is going to do whatever it is they want. The point of this thread was to make people stop and consider, even if it's for a moment.

No two people are going to have the same knowledge on a subject, so it's only smart to compare notes. When I was first getting into this lifestyle, I had what I affectionately will call a mentor. She stressed that while it's important to have fun, it's also very much important to keep your mind open and to always learn. I have always kept that to heart. Much play that I do usually just involve common sense, but there are other types that make me want to research, to absorb everything I can about it.

I used to be VERY against electric play because the risk of causing damage was too high. It was just something I was not going to do, regardless of if a partner wanted me to or not. But a few months ago, my local munch group held a class on it. I went, thinking that even if I didn't do it, I would at least have the KNOWLEDGE of what electric play involves.

I'm far from having a photogenic mind, but what I learned amazed me. The instructors have been practicing safe and sane play with electric devices/toys for nearly twenty years, and they were a fountain of knowledge. They encouraged the class to try out a device here or there, stressing with each different toy what precautions should be taken with it, how to clean it, and what to do if things should go wrong.

I learned that day that I actually quite enjoy electrical play, and that I do want to experience more of it. BUT, because I still don't have full knowledge of it, (things tend to go in one ear and right out the other with me), I decided that I would only continue the play at play parties, so that I can continue to talk more with the instructors and play in a safe environment.

Anyone with any experience in the lifestyle is always going to tell you to be safe and sane as well as consentual. They're not telling you you cant do something, only that you take the time and learn about it. Nothings worse than when a scene goes wrong.

And just for the hell of it, what safe and sane means according to the dictionary =^.^=

sane
Adjective
1. having a normal healthy mind
2. sensible or well-judged: sane advice [Latin sanus healthy]

safe
adj. saf·er, saf·est
1. Secure from danger, harm, or evil.
2. Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound.
3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet.
4. Affording protection: a safe place.

janet · Senior Member

DaddysTouch, perhaps you'd feel more at home with another acronymy view of BDSM: RACK, which stands for risk-aware, consensual kink. Very short description here: http://www.vancouverleather.com/bdsm/ssc_rack.html

Basically, it asserts that one can't really consent to something unless one knows what risks one is consenting to...but once one does, it's nobody else's business whether something is 'safe' by some individual, relative standard.

Sui Juris Cattus · Guru

I can be a fairly elloquent fellow when need-be, however, I see no need to reinvent the wheel....Therefore I give you the following link for your reading enjoyment, continued education, or whatever you want to call it.