SSC provides lazy, dull-witted, or malicious tops an easy out.

http://www.leatherleadership.org/safesanestein.htm

What a great thread title.

The following is by Gloria Brame. I was looking for something else when I ran across it. I found it to be thought provoking. I don't have any guilt/shame about doing SM. But I do see her point about it being diluted, and when a Dom/me Top says they are SSC, well, it doesn't carry a lot of weight. I'm off to the golf course. In this heat, it's probably not safe or sane, but I'll drink lots of water. Have a good day, Y/yall

I think het male doms in particular (with many notable exceptions, of course) often use SSC as an easy out from their extreme guilt/shame about doing SM. In a perfect world, doms deal with the demons of their sexual repression before they take on the leadership role in a power relationship. SSC provides lazy, dull-witted, or malicious tops an easy out. In the 80s, I’d hear from male doms who said they were afraid that if they did SM, they were "just like" Ted Bundy. Nowadays, by loudly announcing that they are SSC, they chase that demon away . . . or do they? As bad as it may be to compare yourself to a criminal, if you are struggling with profound guilt, it’s better to do the comparison, IMO, and then, point by point, logically analyze the ways in which one is different.

People are using SSC as if it’s a magic cloak — wear it and no one sees the guilt! — not a philosophical point of departure for deeper analyses of their behaviors. But if you haven’t tackled the underlying issues, come to terms within yourself with your own ethical standards, and if you aren’t living up to the true spirit of SSC, then really you haven’t overcome the "am I a vicious criminal or just a nice guy who likes to beat consenting partners for fun?" conundrum. You’ve just put a fresh coat of paint on your termite-infested house.

In this way, stuff like SSC, safe words, negotiation, and all the other truly marvelous concepts designed to help us create a moral structure, and which should protect submissives from dangerous tops and assist tops in establishing ethical principles, have become so diluted and distorted, they almost seem now to be used more frequently by unsafe and casual players than real sadomasochists.

Also, what’s particularly galling to me, personally, is that it’s part of another trend in the Scene: this need people have to assert their superiority and place themselves in some imaginery hierarchy of sexual enlightenment. Obviously, over-compensation for insecurity . . . but also something that is very dangerous in a dominant, i.e., Major Ego Problems! It’s used at times to enforce an "us vs. them" mentality . . . . All you have to do is say you’re SSC (whatever it means, whether or not you’ve really given any thought to what it means, whether or not what you think is right or not or has any basis in reality) . . . et, voilà! you’re a top who deserves respect and even kudos for "playing by the rules."

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think SSC is a slogan that doesnt really mean very much. Whats safe? I can use a whip safely, but not as safely as some people, and much more safely than others. So there is no real definition of safe, is there?
Sane? What the hell does that mean, I ask you? Lots of people would say none of what we do is sane. Even people in BDSM dont always think eveyrthing other people do is sane. And hey, maybe it isnt. Its a word that has no meaning we can agree to.
As far as Im concerned, consentual is the real deal. I wont do anything non consentual, but I bet I have done plenty that a lot of you would say is not safe and some things you might think are not sane.
SSC is in my opinion, a PR slogan to make people feel they are OK, like WriterDom said.
Its a nice attitude, but it doesnt really mean anything.

WriterDom

Thank you for posting that link.

Vanilla-ization?

Isn't SSC a relatively Vanilla or PG-13 rated version of what BDSM was, say 20 years ago, promoted to increase mainstream popularity of BDSM?

Nipple clamps, butt plugs, cock rings, bondage and fetish gear.... are more popular than ever...perhaps because that form of play, supported by safewords, etc, has been promoted to make BDSM for accessible to mainstreamers.

Is SSC simply good marketing....the Vanilla-ization of BDSM?

LC

MzChrista said:

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think SSC is a slogan that doesnt really mean very much. Whats safe? I can use a whip safely, but not as safely as some people, and much more safely than others. So there is no real definition of safe, is there?
Sane? What the hell does that mean, I ask you? Lots of people would say none of what we do is sane. Even people in BDSM dont always think eveyrthing other people do is sane. And hey, maybe it isnt. Its a word that has no meaning we can agree to.
As far as Im concerned, consentual is the real deal. I wont do anything non consentual, but I bet I have done plenty that a lot of you would say is not safe and some things you might think are not sane.
SSC is in my opinion, a PR slogan to make people feel they are OK, like WriterDom said.
Its a nice attitude, but it doesnt really mean anything.

Click to expand...

What is or is not safe can be reasonably determined, I believe, at least at a basic level. Your example of whipping does not hold up to me because although you may not be as safe as someone else, you are at least capable of using your whip at a level above an acceptable minimum. (And yes, I know you are actually far above that level, I'm just going with your example)
Sane, on the other hand, troubles me. I agree with you that it would be impossible to get any group of people to agree to a clear definition of what it means in bdsm terms. Still, I believe that most of us are able to know it when we see it, or more precisely, know when something is not within sane parameters.

Oh, Look, another cat trapped....

Ah, who am I bullshitting? I can't stay away, not when there are thoughts and ideas being exchanged.

On to the point, though:

(Bear in mind I didn't read the article linked to, I'm just responding based on posts and thread title.)

SSC, in my opinion (go ahead and try raking me over the coals if anybody disagrees), is a rallying cry, a sort of philosophy, and a label.

Like most labels, it doesn't quite fit.

Safe - Most of us study anatomy and the use of our toys in order to minimize the damage we can so easily do.

Sane - Most of us take care that our emotions do not override the "safety" imperative.

Consensual - We're in this because we desire/need it. We agree that here, and now, is where we want to be.

SSC is a slogan for an ethical code that's part of most of us, even though the name doesn't quite fit.

"Sane"? Christ, the DSM-IV TR is chock-full of ways we aren't "sane"!

Then again, most of those "conditions" have the qualifier regarding "interfering with normal life" or some such. So maybe we are "sane", even though we push, pull and stretch the definition.

Lancecastor:
"Is SSC simply good marketing.... the Vanilla-ization of BDSM?"

I don't know if it's 'vanillization' as much as it is good marketing.

I mean, wasn't BDSM always safe, sane, and consensual? I mean, before SSC were subs dying in groves because their doms were insane rapists who had no idea of a sub's safety level?

I think SSC means something different to everyone.

"Safe" to me most likely means conservative to a lot of you. There are things I will never, NEVER do with anyone, ie electroplay, breath control, and suspension bondage because even with safe INTENTIONS, things can and do and might go wrong. There's just too much of a risk factor there for me. I know there are those here that have done those things or would do them. You consider them safe, or safe with a particular partner or under particular conditions. That's fine. But you see? My safe is not your safe...or maybe it is. It all depends on your views, experiences or circumstances.

"Sane"...well, to me, that one's a no brainer, but it's also in the eye of the beholder. To me it means that you play in a sound state of mind...never angry, depressed, distraught, etc. I've said and done some things that I will forever regret when in those mindsets...just think if BDSM had been involved at the time.

"Consentual"...another no brainer. But sometimes that one can be pushed, too. I've said no to an activity, toy, or the like and really meant that I wasn't sure, and said "no" to think about it. Again, it all depends on your situation and your partner/s.

I think we need SSC and safewords, we really do. But in order to use them as they were intended, we and the people we play with need to define them for ourselves. Unless we make them personal, make them our own, they serve no purpose...

Never said:

I mean, wasn't BDSM always safe, sane, and consensual? I mean, before SSC were subs dying in groves because their doms were insane rapists who had no idea of a sub's safety level?

Click to expand...

Before SSC submissive *did*, in fact, get hurt (as in not good clean fun) more often. There were far less of us, too, and we were all more precious in a way. Everyone knew everyone else in the local area. We were a community. If a dominant fucked up a sub too often, or if the sub complained to the members of the local group, then that dom was sorta, well, kinda banned. BDSM communities in the pre-SSC days were all about self-help before it was a buzz phrase.

Back then we did get hurt more often.
Plain truth.
I did, anyway.
That brutal caning i've talked about enduring in my past happened back then; today such a caning would NEVER go that far. I would safeword out long before i took the kind of damage (not pleasure damage but bad damage) i took back then. Back then, i had no way out. I was there, on the hard end of that cane, until he was done. And that wasn't an uncommon thing to have happen.

Times have changed.
We're far safer now.
I prefer now to then, most of the time.

But, wistfully, it was more real in a way back then. It was somehow more honest, more focused, more more. Today we're definitely safer but there's a, um, hmmm, kinda watered-down feeling to it these days that's very different from the edgy gritty reality of back then.

I don't want to go back to those days but i do miss the urgent edginess, the feeling that we were the only ones who were truely alive on the whole planet, and the consummate illicitness of who we were and what we did together. Sometimes i miss it, anyway. Mostly, i'm glad to be able to scream RED and know it'll stop, whatever it is, if that's what i gotta have. I'll never be caned like that again.

My bit

Safe - preventing the spread of communicable diseases, and personal safety issues.

Sane - well do you want an insane person touching you?

Consentual - I like what Mistress Steel says in that she says that you obtain consent over and over again. It can always be withdrawn.

Ebony

Vanilla-ization, PartDeux

Never said:

Lancecastor:
"Is SSC simply good marketing.... the Vanilla-ization of BDSM?"

I don't know if it's 'vanillization' as much as it is good marketing.

I mean, wasn't BDSM always safe, sane, and consensual? I mean, before SSC were subs dying in groves because their doms were insane rapists who had no idea of a sub's safety level?

Click to expand...

Ha! Droves in groves, no doubt, with bulging -eyed whip-wielders crazed by their evil,perverted lust.

You make a good point....but I wonder if popularity hasn't watered things down.

Thirty years ago there weren't stores in vanilla neighborhoods selling plugs, dildos,etc....some objects weren't even mass-produced, I'd think. Nowadays, you can go buy a flogger just about anywhere, relatively speaking.

Mass culture tends to dumb things down, so I wonder if that's the case with bdsm.....which is why I think the codification of common sense as SSC is evidence of vanilla-ization.

LC

This is a topic I can't resist

I have given the linked-to article a quick fly-over read. I will not so much go into the history as it is recited there but instead throw a little more of my personal opinions in here.

When BDSM was not mainstream, when it was hiden and secretive, when it was something for "mentally ill and otherwise psychologically disturbed people" ... that was when the SSC was born.

Even though it was inspired in a "defense" situation to justify what we as a community of completely mental capable adults were doing, I think it hasn't lost anything of its meaning and impact if someone looking at it WANTS to see the true meaning.

Someoen said: wasn't it always safe, sane and consentual?
Unfortunately it neither was nor is it now, logo or no.

Before you start screming:but then it isn't BDSM, then it is abuse and it is sick and criminal! ...hold it for a moment and ask yoursef: isn't that exactly what "public" thinks BDSM is about? So without EXPLAINING ina a short, spot-on motto that no, this is not at all what it is all about, how should people have known?

It may not have been needed for those IN the lifestyle, but for those NOT in it.

How would any single individual in pre-internet days have known that he/she wasn't a good Dom/me by simply being egoistial, cruel and mean if this was the general official consensus?

Back "then" you couldn't educate yourself as easily as we can now, how much more must false impressions and prejudice have "conterminated" the vision of Dom/mes and subs alike.... how would a "slave to be" have known that it was not ok what was being done to him/her?

And how GREAT was a quick statement of SSC directly attached to BDSM to give everyone interested a much clearer picture of what was supposed to happen under the so much shunned coat of perverted sexual behaviour on which you wouldn't be educated till you were skindeep into it?


Let me turn to TODAY .... internet, magazines, TV-Shows, clubs and fairs .... nothing much is left unsaid about BDSM, the followers and practicioners, the techniques and toys involved. And still .... isn't it the main accusation we get to hear that we are sickos, and in the case of Dom/mes even criminal abusers and even rapists?
Do we have the time and nerve to explain over and over again our motivations, our caring and the deep trust involved in our relations? I don't anymore - but I have to from time to time... and HOW HANDY then is it to drag out the good ol' SSC creed? I personally am glad someone put the concept (the main bits of it anyway) into a short ,easy to use motto that resolves most prejudical misconceptions about our lifestyle.

Last but not least ... I look around here and on on other BDSM related message boards. How many people turn to "us" to seek information about something they find tantalizing, intriguing - but scary and slightly disturbing at the same time?

How many you think would dare venturing into our realm if there was no SSC-tag declaring us to be no bloodthirsty control-freaks and potentially dangerous maniacs? How would the new people know we aren't dangerous criminal loonies if it were not for the easy to use and thusly wide spread little SSC that they come across on every serious BDSM ressource?

It may be very boiled down and basic - but it serves the purpose of at least allowing the curious to explore a little further wihtou fearing the stigma of being sick or perverted (in the bad sense). Only by at least encouraging them that far can we hope to build understanding for what we do and who we are.

Throw in now a new gerneration of kids mainly, who are so full of themselves, thinking to know it ll, always searching the ultimate "kick" - in all aspects of life, including sex. How wide would we open the doors to allow those to slip under the mantle of BDSM without WARNING / EDUCATING them on the true nature of our lifstyle? They wont take time to learn - they want "hands on stuff" straight away - no time for elaborate phrases, but even then a SSC can slide in quickly.... no excuses there for "not having known". Imagine they started to play, taking all they saw in magazines and movies for REALITY!!!!!!! SCARRRRRRRRYYYYYYY!!!!! and dangerous.

So I for one think the SSC - as deply meaningful (or not) as it may be for those who KNOW about BDSM - is maybe crucial (if not life saving) for those who are either not willing to get deeply enough involved to propperly discover the "why" and "how" or those who are deliberately tricked into "bad stuff" under the BDSM cover.

Just imagine the insecure, confused and BDSM-exploring kid being told by her "lover" that "s/he would do ANYTHING s/he told her without questioning the decision becasue this was BDSM" ... knowing the SSC rule at least there is a chance to realize this is NOT how it is supposed to be.

Does SSC make for dull-witted, malicious and lazy tops?

NO! I think it makes for more inventive, more creative and more caring Tops - since we know we are not harming or else we would be told (safe), because we know we are appreciated by our partners and not detested (consensual) and becasue we add to each others lives something that makes us whole, happier, better people (sane).

If I were not CONVINCED that what I did was in the best interest of all parties involved (and I rely on my sub to be HONEST as hell in this) I could not do what I do - or at least I would sure not enjoy it .




sorry about the gazillions of typos, but I just don't have the time to fix them right now

Re: This is a topic I can't resist

Hecate said:

I have given the linked-to article a quick fly-over read. I will not so much go into the history as it is recited there but instead throw a little more of my personal opinions in here.

When BDSM was not mainstream, when it was hiden and secretive, when it was something for "mentally ill and otherwise psychologically disturbed people" ... that was when the SSC was born.

Even though it was inspired in a "defense" situation to justify what we as a community of completely mental capable adults were doing, I think it hasn't lost anything of its meaning and impact if someone looking at it WANTS to see the true meaning.

Someoen said: wasn't it always safe, sane and consentual?
Unfortunately it neither was nor is it now, logo or no.

Before you start screming:but then it isn't BDSM, then it is abuse and it is sick and criminal! ...hold it for a moment and ask yoursef: isn't that exactly what "public" thinks BDSM is about? So without EXPLAINING ina a short, spot-on motto that no, this is not at all what it is all about, how should people have known?

It may not have been needed for those IN the lifestyle, but for those NOT in it.

How would any single individual in pre-internet days have known that he/she wasn't a good Dom/me by simply being egoistial, cruel and mean if this was the general official consensus?

Back "then" you couldn't educate yourself as easily as we can now, how much more must false impressions and prejudice have "conterminated" the vision of Dom/mes and subs alike.... how would a "slave to be" have known that it was not ok what was being done to him/her?

And how GREAT was a quick statement of SSC directly attached to BDSM to give everyone interested a much clearer picture of what was supposed to happen under the so much shunned coat of perverted sexual behaviour on which you wouldn't be educated till you were skindeep into it?


Let me turn to TODAY .... internet, magazines, TV-Shows, clubs and fairs .... nothing much is left unsaid about BDSM, the followers and practicioners, the techniques and toys involved. And still .... isn't it the main accusation we get to hear that we are sickos, and in the case of Dom/mes even criminal abusers and even rapists?
Do we have the time and nerve to explain over and over again our motivations, our caring and the deep trust involved in our relations? I don't anymore - but I have to from time to time... and HOW HANDY then is it to drag out the good ol' SSC creed? I personally am glad someone put the concept (the main bits of it anyway) into a short ,easy to use motto that resolves most prejudical misconceptions about our lifestyle.

Last but not least ... I look around here and on on other BDSM related message boards. How many people turn to "us" to seek information about something they find tantalizing, intriguing - but scary and slightly disturbing at the same time?

How many you think would dare venturing into our realm if there was no SSC-tag declaring us to be no bloodthirsty control-freaks and potentially dangerous maniacs? How would the new people know we aren't dangerous criminal loonies if it were not for the easy to use and thusly wide spread little SSC that they come across on every serious BDSM ressource?

It may be very boiled down and basic - but it serves the purpose of at least allowing the curious to explore a little further wihtou fearing the stigma of being sick or perverted (in the bad sense). Only by at least encouraging them that far can we hope to build understanding for what we do and who we are.

Throw in now a new gerneration of kids mainly, who are so full of themselves, thinking to know it ll, always searching the ultimate "kick" - in all aspects of life, including sex. How wide would we open the doors to allow those to slip under the mantle of BDSM without WARNING / EDUCATING them on the true nature of our lifstyle? They wont take time to learn - they want "hands on stuff" straight away - no time for elaborate phrases, but even then a SSC can slide in quickly.... no excuses there for "not having known". Imagine they started to play, taking all they saw in magazines and movies for REALITY!!!!!!! SCARRRRRRRRYYYYYYY!!!!! and dangerous.

So I for one think the SSC - as deply meaningful (or not) as it may be for those who KNOW about BDSM - is maybe crucial (if not life saving) for those who are either not willing to get deeply enough involved to propperly discover the "why" and "how" or those who are deliberately tricked into "bad stuff" under the BDSM cover.

Just imagine the insecure, confused and BDSM-exploring kid being told by her "lover" that "s/he would do ANYTHING s/he told her without questioning the decision becasue this was BDSM" ... knowing the SSC rule at least there is a chance to realize this is NOT how it is supposed to be.

Does SSC make for dull-witted, malicious and lazy tops?

NO! I think it makes for more inventive, more creative and more caring Tops - since we know we are not harming or else we would be told (safe), because we know we are appreciated by our partners and not detested (consensual) and becasue we add to each others lives something that makes us whole, happier, better people (sane).

If I were not CONVINCED that what I did was in the best interest of all parties involved (and I rely on my sub to be HONEST as hell in this) I could not do what I do - or at least I would sure not enjoy it .




sorry about the gazillions of typos, but I just don't have the time to fix them right now

Click to expand...

I held off commenting on the SSC,...simply because I couldn't easily put my thoughts into words.

Fortunately,...Hecate has done just this for me,...and I thank her from the bottom of my heart.

"DITTO"

Damnm! The spooky eyed lady rocked the house on that one.
OK I got me some thinkin to do.

Hecate, very well put, you made some excellent points. I agree completely.

Re: This is a topic I can't resist

Hecate said:

<snip>

Even though it was inspired in a "defense" situation to justify what we as a community of completely mental capable adults were doing, I think it hasn't lost anything of its meaning and impact if someone looking at it WANTS to see the true meaning.

<snip>

Last but not least ... I look around here and on on other BDSM related message boards. How many people turn to "us" to seek information about something they find tantalizing, intriguing - but scary and slightly disturbing at the same time?


<snip>

It may be very boiled down and basic - but it serves the purpose of at least allowing the curious to explore a little further without fearing the stigma of being sick or perverted (in the bad sense). Only by at least encouraging them that far can we hope to build understanding for what we do and who we are.

<snip>

Does SSC make for dull-witted, malicious and lazy tops?

NO! I think it makes for more inventive, more creative and more caring Tops - since we know we are not harming or else we would be told (safe), because we know we are appreciated by our partners and not detested (consensual) and becasue we add to each others lives something that makes us whole, happier, better people (sane).

If I were not CONVINCED that what I did was in the best interest of all parties involved (and I rely on my sub to be HONEST as hell in this) I could not do what I do - or at least I would sure not enjoy it .

Click to expand...

I pared Hecate's wonderful post down to the parts that speak directly to me.

SSC has meaning for everyone that gives it meaning. Just as we all have different limits, we all have different understandings of the concepts of SSC, and we have different perceptions of what behaviors demonstrate adherence to those principles.

Once again, we're left with communication and honesty. We have to communicate what SSC means to us and find someone who has compatible beliefs. If that happens, SSC isn't just a slogan, it is what it was meant to be - a guide that protects and frees us.

Safe: you check in before during and after with each other,
you do not use implements or practises that could cause damage needing A&E or causing lasting pain/scars
you do not play if you are beyod the limit of drink or drugs which would allow you to operate a heavy digger truck safely

Sane: you behave as an adult with a recognition of adult responsibiltities;
you treat your play partners as adults and as poeple who have their own feelings
you practise safe sex

Consensuel: you both (or all) want to be here right - now don't just assume - ask, then ask again and again okay!


Its not an 'easy' way out its the way we do things, any person who wants to be careless or offhand will use whatever lies or trite phrases they can to justify their behaviuor.
Its not the things they lie about that are at fault its the people - and they come in all fields, vanilla and BDSM. Just like those girls who say - I'm on the pill and the guys who tell you they always use a condom. Doesn't make using contraception a bad thing or practising safe sex; and neither does it mean that everyoen who says that is lying - we just have to learnt to watch for other signs as well as the obviuos words

Does RACK seem more appropriate/better then? Or just an evolution of SSC?

Random thought...I have nothing else to add at the moment.

RACK = Risk Aware Consensual Kink, btw

petrel said:

Safe: you check in before during and after with each other,
you do not use implements or practises that could cause damage needing A&E or causing lasting pain/scars
you do not play if you are beyod the limit of drink or drugs which would allow you to operate a heavy digger truck safely

Sane: you behave as an adult with a recognition of adult responsibiltities;
you treat your play partners as adults and as poeple who have their own feelings
you practise safe sex

Consensuel: you both (or all) want to be here right - now don't just assume - ask, then ask again and again okay!


Its not an 'easy' way out its the way we do things, any person who wants to be careless or offhand will use whatever lies or trite phrases they can to justify their behaviuor.
Its not the things they lie about that are at fault its the people - and they come in all fields, vanilla and BDSM. Just like those girls who say - I'm on the pill and the guys who tell you they always use a condom. Doesn't make using contraception a bad thing or practising safe sex; and neither does it mean that everyoen who says that is lying - we just have to learnt to watch for other signs as well as the obviuos words

Click to expand...

I don't blame the catch phrase for its misuse. I think it's a perfectly ok way to describe healthy sadomasochistic intent in 5 words or less, but that's not a reason to fall on my knees every time someone says they are SSC, at best it should provoke questions about what that means to the person claiming to be, as safe and sane are very subjective.
It's a starting point, not an ending point to dialogue. Of course, being humans, we like sloganeering.