Another POV - SSC

[lark sparrow]

I came across this article a couple of years ago, and found it not only humorous, but thought-provoking. Original (and complete) transcript of lecture by Laura Antoniou: http://www.sexuality.org/latrans.html

Fantasies are not reality. I know, I know, I know. Except when they are. Except when you make them into reality. And fuck this. I didn't come out of years of fantasy rescuing myself from a toxic parent and guilt-tripping myself through anti-sex feminism, politically correct lesbianism, and socially programmed homosexual activism so that someone else could make my goddamn sex life into a slogan: Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

What does it mean? Assimilation, that's what. The politics of appeasement, the hope that, Gee, if we look and act just like everyone else, if we can only convince the dominant culture that we're really harmless and just like they are, except that where we put our dicks and clits and tongues, and what we like on our dicks and clits and tongues, why, we'll earn our civil rights, and everybody will live happily ever after, except for the boy-lovers, who give us all a bad name anyway.

Originally, Safe, Sane, and Consensual, hereafter referred to as SSC, came out of the mostly gay men's S/M movement, probably GMSMA, but I'm willing to hear about where else it came from. I've heard several different versions of who came up with our beloved slogan.

The first time I heard about it was in connection with the expansion of the National Leather Association in connection with a desire to create some sort of unified national network of leather persons. SSC was something everyone could stand behind. For a group of marginalized outcasts, it was supposed to be our rallying call.

A rallying call? Hello? Like Live Free Or Die? Remember The Alamo? Black Is Beautiful? Who Killed Karen Silkwood? Safe, Sane, Consensual.

Well, okay. It's as good as any, but why not Happy, Healthy, and Wise? Rational, Intelligent, and Sensitive? Open-minded, Empathic, and Cheerful? Willing, Hot, and Horny? I like that one. All these are laudable attitudes.

So some rallying cry; who's going to argue with it? I mean, what's more to the point? What social interaction should not be safe, sane, and consensual? Shouldn't all sex be like that? Shouldn't all relationships be like that?

But okay, it's just a slogan. Slogans don't mean shit. After all, what did Just Say No and Just Do It have to do with any kind of reality you understand?

Slogans give people something to chant, something to put on their banners, and something to distinguish the us from the them, and I guess SSC does beat Horny And Looking For Some Kinky Nookie Right Now; Are You A Top Or A Bottom, And What Are You Wearing?

But it's become so much more than a slogan. It's now a way of life. Every S/M organization has to include this little catchphrase into their statement of purpose, that is, if they ever get around to having one.

It has to be on every banner when they march. It has to be included in every titleholder's speech, in club banquets, on colors, and in newsletters. Every entrant into S/M, in one way or another, is assured ad nauseum that everything will be Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

The only activity we condone is SSC. Why, all good S/M is SSC. SSC is good. Isn't it good that we all practice S/M, that is, SSC?

I'm walking through a play party. I have black and red showing left and a bag of toys stashed behind the couch. There's this cutie I'd love to diddle, but right now she's getting tickled and a backrub.

Okay. I'll watch that scene over there. Two people are methodically going through their toy bag as he uses them one at a time on her. They chat.

Does she like this? Giggle. Oh, yes, she does. Smack. Isn't that nasty? Oh, you beast. Giggle, giggle.

Let's try this one; it's made out of an old mop head. More giggles.

Fighting off a yawn, how rude. I wander past two girls earnestly discussing their upcoming scene. I eavesdrop.

Red means to stop; yellow means slow down; blue means I want to talk to you about something; green means you should go faster and harder.

I don't tell them about fisting and piss and cocksucking. Why do I feel older than I really am? I don't want to tell them about muffled yelps and screams and the moment before the tears start to flow, the terrible moment when you know that just one more sharp pain and you will not be able to hold them back.

I do want to tell them, on the other hand. I want to tell them about watching someone's control slip away. Touching a crotch to find that there's pussy cream mixing with drops of panic piss, and about the redness of her face when the sobbing has become deep and regular.

I want to tell them about the pleas of the damned, the cries when someone doesn't know when it's going to stop or how when they want their mommy, or they want their master, or when want to surrender and fall to the ground and feel a boot at the back of their neck and grind away until they come and it's terrible.

But I smile, and I nod, and I pass on, and I don't even say a fucking thing.

There's a whipping going on, so I go watch that. Oh, yeah, this is better. Thwack, thwack, smack, smack. Heavy red marks. Muscles straining. Grunts.

And then the whip lands around the ribs, and I hear the bottom yell, "Wrap!" And the top bites her lip and tries to aim better next time. Someone in the back snorts in derision. I guess their bottom had better manners, or maybe their aim is perfect, and they never, ever wrap.

That happened to me once. I grabbed her by the hair, and I pulled her head back onto my shoulder, and I shoved the handle up against her throat.

"Don't you think I know that?" I asked her, knowing that in one second, if she gave me the wrong answer, I was going to set her free, rub her wrists, and go upstairs for a cup of coffee. "Do you think I'm not looking at you?" I asked, "Do you think I'm an idiot? Do you think I'm your fucking whip slave that you can use that tone of voice with me and alert me to what I am doing?"

She did the right thing, and I whipped her some more. But later on, I pushed the envelope very, very far with her. I used my knife. It took a while to get her into the proper place. It took me even longer to get back.

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

What is happening to my sex? It's cold. It's passionless. And what's worse, it's dull. John Preston was right. S/M has become this nice, sweet alternative to heavy petting, and leaders of the S/M community wants to be us to be Elks or some other animal-named civics organization, gathering to sell each other expensive clothing and raffle tickets and congratulating each other on how nice we are.

This used to be about sex. The literature of my people is pornography. Filled with cries for mercy, drama enacted on people without prolonged negotiation. Partners engaged in a dance in the middle of a bonfire.

Now it's three-hundred-page manuals on how to make sure nothing bad will ever happen to you and twelve-page party rules that state that the utmost care must be taken to make sure that no one is frightened or offended, that no bodily fluids are spilled, and no cries shock the neighbors.

Nothing is safe. I have a new friend with an old problem. Engaged as a co-top in a scene, she was present when a well-trussed-up bottom had a seizure. There was nothing in what they were doing that was related to this event. It was one of those medical anomalies. Like a flash, the bottom was freed from bondage. 911 was called. There was knowledge of CPR. There was plenty of good, wise emergency care. The bottom got better, in fact, went home under his own power. They told them to check it out with a doctor, find out if there was a problem no one knew about. Everyone went to bed.

My friend, however, was very disturbed by this incident, as anyone would be. It's no joy to be present when somebody suddenly goes limp. But her initial reaction was that something had gone wrong with an S/M scene, and that someone had almost died on her. Suddenly, this awesome responsibility upon her as a top was revealed. She told this on ASB, as a matter of fact, alt.sex.bondage on the Internet, as a cautionary tale.

Bullshit. People have seizures. People faint. People have mysterious heart conditions that rear up and kill them at sixteen years of age. Do coaches then rise up and solemnly discuss about how all coaches should be heart specialists because of the great responsibilities of training potentially fragile athletes? No. They put the kid in shorts, and they put him out on the court.

If I'm driving my car and a friend in the passenger seat has a heart attack, am I at fault for not being a surgeon? For not having nitroglycerine on hand?

If I'm passionately screwing away at the advanced age of 97, and suddenly my entire brain explodes in one final orgasm that snuffs me out like a candle dipped in blood, will that sweet young thing beneath me be responsible for not knowing that that massive embolism was waiting for the right moment to end my lifelong perversity? Of course not. She has enough to worry about.

What goes on when people overfetishize safety is that they're relapsing in the old frame of mind that what we're doing is bad. It's dangerous. It's scary. It has the potential to get out of hand. That's why we surround ourselves with rules, and we make a slogan into a mantra. Why we police ourselves and each other with an obsession aimed at making our love life and play into the sanest, safest, most consensual drama ever enacted in a relationship.

Well, life ain't safe. I get up, and everyday I do things that place my body and life in danger. I take showers, and we all know how many people bash their brains out in the tub every year. I stand on rickety chairs to change light bulbs. I drive in New`York. I walk through dark Manhatten streets in a meat packing district in very queer clothing. I drink. I go to gyms, and I abuse my body, and then I sit in saunas. People die in them, you know. I eat meat. I eat sugar. I ride horses. I shovel snow, and I write, and I edit pornographic books under my real name in a conservative administration. I have joined the ACLU. If I wanted to, I could take up karate and I could go skiing. I could buy a motorcycle. This is all deadly stuff.

And life ain't sane, in case you haven't noticed. Any world where kids are born unwanted and people die from hunger, where tobacco is subsidized and artists are not, where one gender is dominant and one's skin tone, and where rapists get out on bail and pot smokers get thirty-year sentences, this is not a fucking sane world. So who gets to judge my relative sanity? Doctors? Lawyers? Or other perverts?

And as for consent, that is the real issue, isn't it? Except, surprise - It's just another shadow term, all substance and no real meaning. I can hear the whines now, "But it's bad to do these things without consent."

Well, no kidding. It's bad to subject medical experiments on people without consent, but I don't see the AMA adopting the slogan Healthy, Helpful, and Consensual.

All sex should be consenting, yet I've yet to see a dating service advertise as "fun, sexy, and consensual." The trouble is, S/Mers are allowing themselves to be defined by what we're not. We think, "Oh, so many people believe that we're all murderers and rapists, we have to explain why we're not." So a slogan for the gay civil rights movement should be Normal, Nonthreatening, and Not After Your Children?

What's worse is, the growth of that slogan into the labeling device it's become. Whenever someone is found to be unpopular or threatening, all it takes to get them out of the scene is to start a whispering campaign about how unsafe, insane, and nonconsensual they are.

Now, when the boys want that big old dyke and her bullwhip away from their sash parades, all they have to say is, "She's endangering people; it's unsafe," or, "She's not projecting a proper image for our community. That's insane." "The people watching have not given their permission to be shown this kind of behavior. That's nonconsensual."

And boom, they don't have to have no big old dyke with a whip leading their parade. They have good old SSC to rely on, and no one argues with that.

The fact is, I'm tired of being told what's okay for me. I'm tired of all the safe words. Sometimes I'm tired of safe words altogether. I don't want to negotiate everything to death. I want to be surprised or surprise someone. I want to be afraid, and I want to cause someone to piss in terror.

I want to have sweat and piss and cum and blood dripping, and not just because it's warm and late and the sex is nice. There are times when I want to walk into a room, grab that girl, slap her hard, and make her cry. I want to push her down and fuck her mind over twice as hard as her body. Sometimes I want to be that girl.

And the harder the SSC thing pushes at me, the harder I feel like pushing back. Passion, that's what I'm into. Passion and blood and honor. So powerful that it pounds through my veins and blinds me. So terrible I can't look away. Danger, dementia, denial.

I want to hear that panic. I want to scream, "No, please." And struggle through the haze of pain and pleasure and all the stuff that goes on between the moment that we touch eyes and the moment we both collapse and try to breathe and wonder how to break the silence.

My fantasies have never been safe ones. Don't fuck with me unless you understand that.

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

You avoid getting enmeshed in unhealthy relationships with the, community by remembering that ultimately you are a full person by yourself, and really, what do you want from any group of people gathered together just because they have an interest in similar sexual activities?

You get to play with me by being witty, passionate, interested in me, and able to carry on a conversation. It helps if you're a woman. It also helps if you're open to mixed-gender space. It helps if you're a hopeless romantic or at least a realist and a very good fuck-buddy. It helps if you're a confident, ruthless, and passionate top or surrendering, brave, and a noble bottom.

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

To surrender to agony, to refuse or reject comfort. One of the things that I found was that comforting, to me, has to be very brief or else it annoys me, cause I don't want pity for my agony. I want respect for it.

I want my top to look me in the eyes, as someone did recently, and say, "Good, good," (patting motion) and then turn away and deal with what they have to deal with.

Sometimes I want them to kick me in the ribs and say, "Come out and join us when you're presentable, slut," and leave it to me to put myself together because I'm a strong bottom.

That doesn't mean I don't comfort. God knows I'm a nice person - Well, sometimes - and when someone needs it, I want to be able to be there for them, but I think part of the wonder of some of the things that we do is that we are so strong that a top can be cruel and walk away, that a bottom can be strong and get up and put themselves together. That's romance, I mean, that is not the hearts-and-flowers romance, that's romance, from the guts.

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

Well, as you might have guessed from some of the things I've said and what I've read tonight, I am not clean and sober. I have been, but I am not now, nor do I regret not being now.

On a personal level - and I'm not advocating this - On a personal level, I believe that the use of controlled substances is an adult choice.

I also believe that it is an informed choice. I will play with someone who drinks or does drugs, but I want to know what they're on, and that way I can decide what I'm going to do, and when I am drinking or on something not so legal, I tell the person I'm with and leave it up to them whether they choose to deal with me.

I make it clear at the onset of a relationship that I respect sobriety, and if a partner wants to play with me and does not want me to drink or use I will not. If they'd rather not hang out in a bar, I won't hang out in the bar with them or insist that they should.

But at the same time, I insist on respect for my insobriety, should I say. Sometimes I go to a space. It might be a bar, or it might be a friend's house sitting on the floor with the pillows watching MTV and going wow.

Where it fits in in the whole Safe-Sane-Consensual thing, I heard a rumor that someone tried to raise Safe, Sane, Consensual, and Sober as an additional option, and I was so horrified I pissed myself in terror and decided I would never go to one of their parties, and that's about the extent of the activism I'd do. Like I said, I respect sobriety, and I respect my right to be unsober. Not sober. Fucked up.

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

I don't know how to turn it around either, except by being open, outrageous, and challenging it when I see it.

I've missed a couple of parties because I refused to sign the so-called party rules disclaimer thing at the door, because it requires that all entrants be safe, sane, consensual, and sober and fun and happy and clean and thrifty, reverent, right. Yeah, right. On my honor, I was somewhere we had to demonstrate how we would play with fire before we be allowed to play with fire.

And I used to go to parties where they had rules about no sexual touching, regardless of condoms, gloves, dental dams, whatever.

I suppose. Why don't we all play clothed? I'll bring my massage balls and we can rub them over each other's backs and listen to newage music - Excuse me - New Age, and we can all be lovely and fun together and sit on pillows and share our deepest, darkest secrets. Of course we'd have to get stoned first - Oops. That's a no-no.

Now I don't go to them anymore, and I told them why. And whenever someone I know has parties that are open to allowing people to express themselves in less-regimented ways, I make a habit of encouraging people to go, even if they're not going to play that way. Even if they don't like to watch.

They don't have to watch. Go to the next room. Have a good time. Eat some pate. Come back when they're finished. But just support the people who play hard. Because, come on. We need a space, too.

The people I learned from were not safe, sane, and consensual. The people who taught me first never even heard of Safe, Sane, and Consensual. The people who taught me how to top and put a whip in my hand didn't say, "Remember, ask permission." They said, "Find a bottom, and do these things. And the bottom will let you know whether you're doing it right."

And the bottom didn't say, "Wrap." The bottom said, "Yes, yes." Or the bottom said, "Please don't do that. I hate that, I hate that," and sometimes I listen. So, what do you do? You be out.

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

As long as it's not a gimmick, I find boxing an exhilarating sport, and in fact, if anything shows the right of an adult human being to put their body in danger and to endanger someone else, boxing. Come on.

We revere people who get into a ring and try to gave each other concussions. Next to that, hitting them with a big deerskin flogger is nothing. It was one of the reasons why I made one of the characters in my book a boxer, even though he was an amateur boxer, just because I wanted to show that, you know, this person could do real damage. This person could hit you in the nose and make you fall down and pass out, and that's a scary top. I'd play with him.

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

I am so amazed at the amount of time people spend talking about this stuff. Thinking about it, writing instead of doing it, probably. But oh, my God, I almost got turned off of sex.

On the other hand, I was jerking off compulsively every day. "Oh, my God, that sounds hot."

Lots of misinformation out there on the net, but of course, anyone can get net access, and the number of people who purport to be experts handing out advice is so sad.

Boy, have I gotten bad advice from the Net. There was a guy on alt.sex.oral who absolutely swore that heterosexuals never get AIDS. And I don't believe I'm hearing this. What year is it?

So I try not to get emotionally involved in the Net. It's sort of the same relationship that I have with the leather community. It's very nice. I am on the fringe. I'm never quite in, and I'm never quite out. I have access to it, but I don't take advantage of all of its benefits, and therefore I don't feel personally betrayed when it turns out to be a big mess.
------------------------------------

Ms. Antoniou's novels include The Marketplace, The Slave; The Trainer. Her personal web site is located at www.iron-rose.com/marketplace

 

[Lancecastor]

That's the most interesting thing I think I've read here yet, Lark.

I've been thinking much of what the author voiced for some time...that SSC is really just the Vanillaization of BDSM, the mainstreaming of kink.

Thank you.

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

Bump.

I'd love to hear what Pure, jfaustus, MissTaken, Risia, PB, Zip and the gang think of the issues raised about SSC and BDSM generally in this long but very interesting article.

I hope you'll take time to give it a read and express your thoughts.


Cheers;

Lance

 

[zipman]

Whew! Okay, here goes. I agree with parts of the article and I disagree with others.

I think the whole SSC credo (slogan) arose for two reasons. The first, is well articulated below:

What does it mean? Assimilation, that's what. The politics of appeasement, the hope that, Gee, if we look and act just like everyone else, if we can only convince the dominant culture that we're really harmless and just like they are ... why, we'll earn our civil rights, and everybody will live happily ever after, except for the boy-lovers, who give us all a bad name anyway.

There is defintiely a part of the whole SSC mantra that is used more as advertising than anything else. We're not freaks, we're just normal with a twist. Partly this is to make our lifestyle more pallatable to the mainstream. Partly it is a desire to convince ourselves of the same thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I will say that there are times when I have asked myself "what the fuck is wrong with me that I derive sexual pleasure from dominating and inflicting pain on women for my own sexual satisfaction."

I think we use SSC to legitimize and rationalize BDSM for ourselves and the rest of the world. Who doesn't want acceptance on some level? I believe you used the term "vanillaization of BDSM" Lance. I agree that this usage of SSC has occurred and will continue to occur.

The second reason that SSC came about was due to a legitimate need to ensure the safety of subs in the lifestyle. Lance, I don't know how long you have been into BDSM or checked out the public scenes years ago. I never really knew about the earlier days of BDSM. Let me tell you a brief story and forgive me if it seems off topic.

About 2 years agoI had just broken up with a girlfriend and was on a real bender. I was in a bar in NYC in a kind of seedy neighborhood and was sitting at the bar drinking a lot. A young attractive petite blonde woman walked by me (she looked a lot like the woman I had just broke up with) and I must have been either glaring or leering at her. All of a sudden, this 45 year old woman next to me turned and asked me how long I had been in the lifestyle. I was amazed that she picked me off like that, and we began one of the most amazing conversations about BDSM that I have ever had. She had been doing BDSM for at least 25 years, and she described the early days of BDSM in the NYC scene.

Her story was fascinating, but it was full of true abuse. She was in scenes that put her in the hospital on more than 20 occasions, with injuries ranging from internal bleeding to a broken eardrum. There were times when the sex was non-consensual, in a room full of Doms who raped her for hours. It was a damn scary picture and it turned me off immensely. I had never known any of this and I found it shocking and disturbing.

I think SSC also arose out of a need to protect subs like this woman. Without these rules, there is no way to stop extreme and undesirable, unwanted play from being inflicted on a sub. I am a true believer in limits and boundaries, and part of what the author is describing is a desire to remove these, to place all power in the hands of the Dom/me.

The author of this article enjoys more extreme edge play and that is fine as we are all entitled to choose our own poison, so to speak. However, I read in her article the same desire to force her views on others as she is complaining about others doing to her. She is pushing her preference for "edgier play" onto those who embrace SSC. That I do not agree with at all. Those rules do exist for a valid reason, and the potential for abuse, physical and psychological damage and potential imprisonment/litigation explain and justify their required usage, in both public and private scenes.

But I did enjoy the article, as I enjoy anything that truly makes me consider a new issue or rethink issues I already have an opinion on.

I hope this answers your question Lance, if not, just ask and I would be happy to elaborate on my thoughts.

 

[Lancecastor]

I wasn't left with the conclusion that the values comprising SSC were to be avoided.

What I read was a political discussion which said that "SSC" is part of every healthy relationship as a given.

That being said, SSC needn't be rammed down our throats as a CSA Approval (or implied disapproval in some cases) in BDSM any more than at a card game, bingo hall, singles suburban dance club, etc....

I also heard a bemoaning of vanilla-ization, which I share.

It's like my Rule of WalMart: Once you can buy a trendy item or article of clothing at WalMart....it's already long since having ceased to be trendy.

I see social change like a pendulum. I think your bar friend was abused and abuse of that order was the norm. I also think a lot of what passes now for BDSM is really just Cosmo magazine titillation on the rack at WalMart, thanks in part to SSC.

I'm likely somewhere in the middle.

L

 

[lark sparrow]

Granted, she likes to play harder than many would. But I don't hear her saying that everyone should play as hard as she likes to, but rather that these acts/desires are in many ways the root of SM. It involves pain in varying degrees. It may involve humiliation and taboo. It may include playing with fear, extreme control, and trust. Intimacy, and a wide range of sensation - psychologically, physically - for mutual exploration and satisfaction.

Not as in her somewhat sardonic examples... "gathering to sell each other expensive clothing and raffle tickets and congratulating each other on how nice we are", etc... these images lack depth and experience.... soft, caught in a trap of our own making in striving for acceptance, never dipping into "dangerous" areas, lost on the surface.

What could possibly come into question about being known as "safe, sane and consensual"? She is questioning it and makes some insightful points, and what a delivery... even if edge play is not one's bag. Perhaps a call to get back to basics. Exploring... what feels real and right as individuals, as well as becoming aware of the history and general outlook of the community.

In the D/s aspect she seems to point to more respect being given to the Dominant when playing, and less coddling of the sub or bottom, at least for herself personally in either role. Yet when she used the example of a bottom calling out "wrap!" - if the bottom had given the "wrong answer" when questioned and corrected by her, she stated that she would release the bottom - scene over. I don't think her words condone overt force or abuse of power.

She notes the importance of seeking consent, safety and sanity in general, even through the questioning.

---------------------
"So some rallying cry; who's going to argue with it? I mean, what's more to the point? What social interaction should not be safe, sane, and consensual? Shouldn't all sex be like that? Shouldn't all relationships be like that?

And as for consent, that is the real issue, isn't it? Except, surprise - It's just another shadow term, all substance and no real meaning. I can hear the whines now, "But it's bad to do these things without consent."

Well, no kidding. It's bad to subject medical experiments on people without consent, but I don't see the AMA adopting the slogan Healthy, Helpful, and Consensual.

All sex should be consenting, yet I've yet to see a dating service advertise as "fun, sexy, and consensual." The trouble is, S/Mers are allowing themselves to be defined by what we're not. We think, "Oh, so many people believe that we're all murderers and rapists, we have to explain why we're not."
-----------------------------------

I'm glad that others found this article interesting enough to read, and added their points of view. The links to websites, past discussions and responses have been great, and as compelling as the article as a spring board, on spin and food for thought. Although it seems there is agreeance in the basic goodness of SSC in general, everyone responded from a slightly different perspective or first take. Thank you for adding to the SSC topic yet again! (Editing here as has taken enough space on this thread with that huge intial post)

 

[Shadowsdream]

I wasn't left with the conclusion that the values comprising SSC were to be avoided.

What I read was a political discussion which said that "SSC" is part of every healthy relationship as a given.

That being said, SSC needn't be rammed down our throats as a CSA Approval (or implied disapproval in some cases) in BDSM any more than at a card game, bingo hall, singles suburban dance club, etc....

I also heard a bemoaning of vanilla-ization, which I share.

It's like my Rule of WalMart: Once you can buy a trendy item or article of clothing at WalMart....it's already long since having ceased to be trendy.

I see social change like a pendulum. I think your bar friend was abused and abuse of that order was the norm. I also think a lot of what passes now for BDSM is really just Cosmo magazine titillation on the rack at WalMart, thanks in part to SSC.

I'm likely somewhere in the middle.

L

I also take the middle road here and have seen the disintegration of BDSM as I have known it as the SSC mantra has over ridden a different kind of caution.
Mouthing SSC does not equate with practicing it and can lull a sub into a false sense of safety if the Dom/me they are to play with knows the jargon, speaks it but does not practice it.
Abusers will not adapt to mantras, hard players will still find each other and those new to the lifestyle can so easily be stuck just on the edge of vanilla kink as they question each move that they make.
New Dominants in particular may become so lost in the conception of SSC that they have formulated in their own minds that they will never become more than service Dom/mes due to their quest to never get to close to their own limits.
Yes subs need protection, but that protection in many cases needs to be from themeselves. Dom/mes need protection as well. Often from themselves. But the horror stories of abuse are heard from both sides of the whip. The SSC mantra leads the new to BDSM to erroneously believe it is only on the receiving end that this occurs.
Safe Sane and Consensual comes from inside of each of us. As stated, ramming it down our throats from someone elses creation can be a bit offensive.
Just a few small thoughts on a very interesting topic.
Nice thread lark

 

[Hecate]

Not having much time right now, I want to point to another discussion of the SSC motto from awhile back

Just because SSC should be a part of our regular, every day normal, out of scene life that doesn't make it less valid in a BDSM context.

Just because something should be "understood anyway" it doesn't mean it will not need to be pointed out now and then. (Just think about all the political correctness debates - if we were all perfect people none of that would be needed cause we'd all do the right things by ourselves anyway)

Today there is a much wider exposure of the lifestyle to uninformed public as it used to be (simply for the fact of media-availability), thus you can not ASSUME that whoever is exposed to it, on either side of the whip, has any clue about what is to be expected of them. Of course they SHOULD know that all things in life preferrably are safe, sane and consensual, alas, does it hurt to point it out again?

SSC says nothing about not playing rough and on the edge,SSC doesn't require things to be discussed to death, SSC doesn't stop anyone from their form of BDSM style - which should be SSC at all stages at all times anyway even without mentioning (and I guess any discussion about what is SSC for whom under which circumstances may be universes apart from the next person's definition anyway)

Play without safewords is fine if that is what the parties involved want, piss and blood are fine if all involved are happy with the outcome of the scene. It is not for me but that doesn't mean anyone else can't do it ... just don't involve me!

Fact remains in my book that we are talking about sex and relations between attracted persons - and this definitely is based on fun, good times and getting good vibes from it - it is "recreational" and as much as some may find motorcycle riding totally insane and rather spend their time crochetting (sp?) it may be just the right does of adrenaline for others. So what? I like my sex rough and I ride motorbikes - just don't attach yourself to me if you are the "knitting socks" type of person and all will be well.

How much negotiation between the parties involved is needed is purely up to them - and just as I expect to be given room for my way of life I should be giving the same courtesy to everyone else.

It has been said in that other thread pinted out aboce that SSC means different things too different people - and that is why I don't have a problem with it as a "slogan".

Given all the freedom of interpretation to SSC though, it remains true in my eyes that whenever one party involved is feeling threatened/overruled on one of the points SSC stands for, whatever is happening is no longer BDSM as I understand it, then it turns into violence, psychological damage and abuse. My BDSM may not be everyones BDSM, and sure mine is no "stronger" than anyone elses - but I shall live mine in a compatible environment that caters to my needs and likes, ma understandings and ethics.

I can all in all not see, what the problem of the SSC-slogan is - why are people feeling it is "suppressive" and stiffling ? May it help those who need to "be normal after all" to feel ok with their sexuality, and may it remind those of us who are just "us" of the higher ethics in life that never should need to be mentioned but always be followed anyway.

 

[cellis]

We have had several converstions over time here about SSC... I thought it might interesting to present a historical view of how it actually came about.

This is the link to the Leather Archives.

The Oral Histories section includes many taped interviews with Tony DeBlase, where he talks about the origins of SSC. If you read the interviews with him you will see that SSC was never meant to mean to the BDSM community what it does today.

It simply became a catch phrase to make BDSM more polically correct.

While I agree that SSC tenets are needed to protect those who play, somehow we all have to be responsible for our own behaviors. And that means to me being responsible for those that I put in my life, be it Dom or submissive. Not only that but I have a responsibility to those I play with to be all of those things as well. Meaning that I have to practise SSC in my own way.

 

[serijules]

The article was highly interesting, although I found the author's sense of humour and wording of some opinions rather brash and very much not a style that I can relate to. While I don't agree with much of it at all, it was interesting to read another side of SSC.

I guess I can't really relate to what this person is saying though, because SSC is a good thing to me. Some people don't take it far enough, or even give it a passing glance. Those are the people that make the whole concept necessary. I practice SSC and even preach it, but I do agree some take it too far at times. If those people feel the need to excessivly shove it down my throat at parties or in the scene in general and that makes them feel better, wonderful! I'll listen to what they have to say, say a few polite words in return while wishing I could roll my eyes instead, and go on my merry way with my original opinion still intact. Maybe I'll even agree with them and learn something. Who knows.

The author stated that "The fact is, I'm tired of being told what's okay for me." and "And the harder the SSC thing pushes at me, the harder I feel like pushing back.". I sometimes play harder than a lot of my friends, and some of them don't understand it at all. They think it's unhealthy, or unsafe, or whatnot. They think it makes me a 'doormat'. They think lots of things. I think lots of things about their style of play too, not always good things.

BDSM has gotten more widely accepted and even understood in recent years. I think the adaptation of "safe sane and consensual" has a lot to do with that and deserves that credit. Even if it does steal some of the limelight away from what BDSM is all about in the first place, I for one think it's a nice balanced tradeoff.

There is plenty of room for everyone, including their slogans. If someone doesn't like it...that's fine, but the only valid reaction in my opinion is to respect it anyhow, and go find something more suited to your own style or opinion.

So on that note, I'm going to go find an article to read on SSC that more suits me. Thanks for sharing lark, it was incredibly thought provoking and interesting.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Not having much time right now, I want to point to another discussion of the SSC motto from awhile back

Just because SSC should be a part of our regular, every day normal, out of scene life that doesn't make it less valid in a BDSM context.

Just because something should be "understood anyway" it doesn't mean it will not need to be pointed out now and then. (Just think about all the political correctness debates - if we were all perfect people none of that would be needed cause we'd all do the right things by ourselves anyway)

Today there is a much wider exposure of the lifestyle to uninformed public as it used to be (simply for the fact of media-availability), thus you can not ASSUME that whoever is exposed to it, on either side of the whip, has any clue about what is to be expected of them. Of course they SHOULD know that all things in life preferrably are safe, sane and consensual, alas, does it hurt to point it out again?

SSC says nothing about not playing rough and on the edge,SSC doesn't require things to be discussed to death, SSC doesn't stop anyone from their form of BDSM style - which should be SSC at all stages at all times anyway even without mentioning (and I guess any discussion about what is SSC for whom under which circumstances may be universes apart from the next person's definition anyway)

Play without safewords is fine if that is what the parties involved want, piss and blood are fine if all involved are happy with the outcome of the scene. It is not for me but that doesn't mean anyone else can't do it ... just don't involve me!

Fact remains in my book that we are talking about sex and relations between attracted persons - and this definitely is based on fun, good times and getting good vibes from it - it is "recreational" and as much as some may find motorcycle riding totally insane and rather spend their time crochetting (sp?) it may be just the right does of adrenaline for others. So what? I like my sex rough and I ride motorbikes - just don't attach yourself to me if you are the "knitting socks" type of person and all will be well.

How much negotiation between the parties involved is needed is purely up to them - and just as I expect to be given room for my way of life I should be giving the same courtesy to everyone else.

It has been said in that other thread pinted out aboce that SSC means different things too different people - and that is why I don't have a problem with it as a "slogan".

Given all the freedom of interpretation to SSC though, it remains true in my eyes that whenever one party involved is feeling threatened/overruled on one of the points SSC stands for, whatever is happening is no longer BDSM as I understand it, then it turns into violence, psychological damage and abuse. My BDSM may not be everyones BDSM, and sure mine is no "stronger" than anyone elses - but I shall live mine in a compatible environment that caters to my needs and likes, ma understandings and ethics.

I can all in all not see, what the problem of the SSC-slogan is - why are people feeling it is "suppressive" and stiffling ? May it help those who need to "be normal after all" to feel ok with their sexuality, and may it remind those of us who are just "us" of the higher ethics in life that never should need to be mentioned but always be followed anyway.

A great post Hecate, in that it mirrors a lot of my thinking; but I am just too damn lazy to post it!

Ebony

 

[Hecate]

.... but I am just too damn lazy to post it!

Ebony

You are welcome *smiles* there is just some things I obviously can't keep my big mouth shut about ....

 

[Ebonyfire]

You are welcome *smiles* there is just some things I obviously can't keep my big mouth shut about ....

Thank the goddess for that!

Eb

 

[lark sparrow]

Thank you to all who added to the SSC topic yet again!

I'm glad that others found this article interesting enough to read, and added their points of view. The links to websites, past discussions and responses have been great - as compelling as the article, as a spring board on spin and food for thought.

Although it seems there is agreeance in the basic goodness of SSC in general, everyone responded from a slightly different perspective or first take, and it was a good read. lol... Hecate did dump this one on it's ear, in the best possible way.

 

[NemoAlia]

Okay, so I'm a little late to this discussion. Oh well -- it has been a great read! I would only add that I don't believe that BDSM is being "vanillaized." I think, perhaps, the term "BDSM" is becoming broader as more people of a wider variety use it to describe themselves. However, as Shadowsdream writes:

Abusers will not adapt to mantras, hard players will still find each other and those new to the lifestyle can so easily be stuck just on the edge of vanilla kink as they question each move that they make.

In other words, I'm not too worried.

I will agree with the thread-starting article, though, when it comes to catch-phrases in general. It seems awf'ly silly to use some words that, if you stop and think about it, are too nebulous to apply specifically to whatever they're being used for.

However, catch phrases are handy ways for self-defined 'insiders' to recognize each other. Is this exclusionary? Well, yes. The author of this article is one good example: she won't attend parties that are hosted by people who spend all their time congratulating themselves and each other on their familiarity and agreement with the 'rules.' However, there's a positive side to the phrase as well: it gives folks who might otherwise have very little in common (I'm a sub, she's a top, he's a piss player, they're sympathetic nillas) a way to feel united. A sense of unity is helpful -- if not essential -- for minority groups who are seeking legitimacy in an unfavorable world.

 

[RisiaSkye]

I've always been in the middle on the whole SSC thing, which if you read my essay on it you already know. But, someone asked that I respond here, so I did.
~~~~

There are some good points in there about what happens when people let their principles become dogma. Complex thought isn't the forte of mottos, nor of sloganeering masses who substitute buzzwords for understanding. Agreed on that count.

Of course, politicians seem to think in soundbites and mottos, so as a political tool, SSC has practical use-value.

~~~~

There are a lot of scary stories about the much more widespread abuse in the BDSM world that existed before my time. I wasn't there, I can't speak for how it was.

But, the SSC motto isn't really preventative of abuse--words don't change action unless you think about them, internalize them, and live them. Ideas aren't as simple as a couple of initials. I've seen abuse in relationships that supposedly were "SSC," and plenty of strong relationships that aren't (or aren't always) SSC--including my own.

I'm in a healthy relationship, but we've done plenty of things that don't fall under the umbrella--like breath play, for instance. We don't do it in public, though. Really, who's getting this bent out of shape about SSC in the bedroom? I suspect nobody. This seems like a public play spaces issue. And if you're offended that public play has to be SSC as much as humanly possible, personally, I think you're an idiot. If you think we've gone "mainstream" because of *this* factor, you're profoundly missing the point.

~~~~

There's another issue at work here, too, I think. There are a substantial number of people, this article's author included, who seem to wear social marginality and self-destructive behavior as a badge of honor, and anything that threatens that marginal status undermines their self-styled "rebel" image and means that they have to step closer to the most dangerous edge of behavior, just to prove that they are in fact as bad-ass as they think they are.

My father's like that, a Hells' Angel who's so pissed at the mainstreaming of Harleys that you'd think it mattered. So are many of his friends. They're just as boring as Weekend Warriors--the dentists and lawyers who buy a motorcycle and think that makes them a tough guy and a biker.

I know it's heretical to say this to BDSMers, but--extremes are boring. Fanatics are entertaining, but not because they're right--because they're deluded.

~~~~

To me, for me, this is the bottom line: Do what you do, however you want to do it. Makes no damned difference to me if you like the SSC motto or not. The motto and its history is a mixed bag of messages, just like everything else. The ideas behind the words are useful and, I think, good ones. But, take it or leave it. Big whoop, either way.

Just don't expect me to applaud you for adopting the motto or for rejecting it. Life, and judgements of any importance or value, are a lot more complicated than a single issue, a single motto, or a single response.

RisiaSkye,
Resident Alien

 

[Pure]

A couple points about RS's posting, then some ones about Ms Antoniou's lecture. RS's posting is partly just used as a 'hook' to hang a point or two. I admire her intellect and lucidity.


Risia Skye said in part,

"I'm in a healthy relationship, but we've done plenty of things that don't fall under the umbrella--like breath play, for instance. We don't do it in public, though. Really, who's getting this bent out of shape about SSC** in the bedroom? I suspect nobody. This seems like a public play spaces issue. And if you're offended that public play has to be SSC as much as humanly possible, personally, I think you're an idiot. "[end]//

I'm not sure what you mean, Risia, but you might be saying that a) there's beyond SSC, 'in the the bedroom'; and that's fine. b) No one will get 'bent out of shape' about this.
In fact, c) SSC is more applicable to public play.

a) is intriguing, and not often said, including in your own posted essay on SSC. It seems to say, I suppose, given your breath example, that 'safe' may be blurred just a little (while still remaining safe). Or, you're saying that you're OK with danger(properly approached), but not what the law calls "reckless endangerment." I tend to agree with this point.

I did post a thread "BDSM, the Law, and you" which goes to the issue-- your point b)--of who might be 'bent out of shape' by some s/m practices. Your local DA, for one, may not care if it's bedroom.

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123091

'Consensual' is not quite a blanket against prosecution, where significant bodily harm has occurred-- in the presence of 'stripes,' bruises, injuries requiring even minor medical attention. In short, the 'sub's' consent may be irrelevant in these situations. Prosecution may proceed in many geographical areas, as in 'domestic abuse' cases. (See the thread.) Probably you know all this.

=====

Ms Antoniou is very refreshing in general, and makes lots of points--and many good ones--some of which would justify a thread in themselves. It's too bad they aren't summarized in 8-10 clear position statements. But here's a couple, as I read her:

1) Concern with legality plagues and obsesses the bdsm community; the 'slogan' designed to assure legality (which it can't) gets carried to a general 'dumbing down' of bdsm, for instance, at an extreme, into a new-age touchy-feely, 'warm fuzzy' practice.

In that sense Risia has a point: if you're going to do something illegal, don't do it in public and/or videotape it (as in the Spanner case I posted.) Of course 'public' is a bit tricky--another thread.
Maybe some people as unaware that sometimes even ONE third party, but certainly more than one, can make something count as public. Swinger's clubs have been busted for this little wrinkle, regardless of the fact that 20 couples are consensually screwing in their separate sofas and niches.

But Antoniou seems right. There's been an obsession with 'consensual' because of legal issues. And as she says, doctors don't talk about it (well, outside of experiments and surgery); but gays certainly do. It's an important phase, to assure the legality of non-antisocial kink.

In a nutshell, as Ms Antoniou says, ANY nonconsensual social interaction--except your God-given right to spank the kids-- is likely to get you busted.

It's a general rule of civilization. A friend told me of a dom who, by arrangement, kidnapped a woman-- turned out to be the wrong woman. Federal hotel accomodations coming? Non-consensual defines assault, rape, and kidnapping.

So I take it Antoniou is saying, the legal 'front' is covered, we know the remedy, let's move on. That's not quite true, but she does have a point about most current discussions of consent: they're boring.

Two more points: I don't want to get tedious:

2) Antoniou is concerned about 'mainstreaming'. Risia pokes fun at it, in respect of aging Angels, and entertaining fanatics--that is, ones not to be followed or --maybe-- taken seriously.

Hecate may not have a problem with 'mainstreaming' either. Well there's a bundle of issues, here. Like the attempt to get bdsm labelled healthy in the next DSM [diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association]. DSM IV is leaning a bit that way. I'd say, however, that there's complexity to this issue, as Risia says.

Is the opposite of SSC, 'self-destructive' (or just plain 'destructive')? Is it useful to frame the debate that way?

There are, of course, genuinely self-destructive folks, like Edgar Allan Poe, but Sade is less clear. Perhaps he would have been quite 'content' to bugger and flagellate some of the kitchen staff and street girls without the 'hard time.'

RS's 'healthy relationship' label--which I don't doubt--begs the question. Or several of them. For instance--leaving aside RS-- is it healthy for one partner to 'give away' their will to another; the so-called 'power transfer.'? As Antoniou asks, is seeking danger in sport or BDSDM, wrong? Is it 'unhealthy'?

3) Last point. Antoniou does suggest something I'm concerned with-- that bdsm becomes uniform, homogeneous. Perhaps more in the 'gentle' or 'soft' form. To some extent that shows in this thread in that there's a softening of any disagreement. Hecate is at the opposite pole from Antoniou, imho, but you'd hardly know it.

The fine 'slogan', everyone is entitled to an opinion, becomes suppressive of real discussion, just as does the slogan 'safe sane consensual.' Imo, it would help clarify issues if basic differences, were more often acknowledged: 'hard' as well as 'soft' sm, the latter most represented here. And there's probably a thousand kinds of bdsm. Some, in fact, amount to what Vera called 'kinky sensuality' and may have no d/s elements at all.

This isn't a call for mayhem in debate. Bloodsport is a 'hard limit' for some! But it would be helpful to a true depth of the SM philosophy, if differences would, more often, at least be stated, as opposed to "We're all SSC, here."

The public perception is perhaps obsessively being considered, and any who, like Risia, admit to dangerous practice, are often labelled as harming the 'legal bdsm' movement.

Enough.
**Typo 'SCC' corrected to SSC, 11/03 12:13am.

 

[TheWanderer]

Just my 2¢

A couple quick thoughts here...

I attended an open munch for the local BDSM group, and they stressed SSC. In that context, hell yes, talk it up. For people who have stumbled into something like this, and have an interest - or those who don't and think they can just fool around in this group of 'weirdos' - it's worth stressing. Especially when they go on to address when the Play Party is held.

However. In a broad, general sense - no, a bunch of people with their Wal-Mart whips and "in-crowd" mentality chanting SSC gives as misrepresenting an image of BDSM as a movie like 8mm does. It's like saying the WWJD movement a few years ago suddenly improved the 'goodness' of America - no, it just gave a nice new trend for the people who wanted to portray an image.

There are, naturally, people who will try to turn just about anything into a fad that people can follow. Granted, D/s doesn't cater to the teen masses like WWJD or Justin Timberlake, but there will always be a crowd of people who try to stand out by being "obviously unpopular" - just like the other people doing the same thing. People who think shopping religiously at Hot Topic makes them somehow better than the people who shop at Wal-Mart. For them, SSC may be some kind of catchphrase that makes it more palatable... but then, these people aren't looking for the real depth of BDSM relationships, they just want something to fit in with... so they can feel like they aren't just 'fitting in' with society.

Ironic... :j

 

[lark sparrow]

What great additions the last few have been when the topic went a bit cold.

I ultimately read this as saying, ok, we're more out now, there's more diversity - fine... but let's not lose the meaning, individuality, and core "extreme" expression of sexuality - this is *not* vanilla-ville. Yes, things should be safe, sane and consensual... but what does that mean? Don't internalize the wrong message. Don't accept it without making it your own.

I too wondered if in part, there was a bit of a, once we were warriors, feeling. Having supported the community through "blood, sweat and tears", and in this case piss and cum... when it was underground, edgier and more dangerous... suddenly finding yourself amongst a large group of perhaps milder players, with a shiney new motto in the spotlight, and feeling as though you are being told how to play, and what BDSM is or should be, perhaps some of these new people "practicing" BDSM on the internet, or into tickle and spank, or using it as mainly a social outlet in great fetish clothes... out of touch with the other extreme: "old guard" philosophy, history and "grit".. and perhaps thinking that in some ways it was indeed unsafe, insane and not so consensual, within their perspective.

I think it's an understandable feeling, "right" or "wrong". There has been and continues to be alot of change. Many of us having never been involved with BDSM before SSC was the guiding light. It's a brave new world, or is it? Seemed an interesting question to ponder for a moment. I also feel she was tolerant enough of the diversity, and milder players (players in this case meaning people who practice BDSM, not "wannabes") though it's not her niche. That there should be a place within the community for all - including hard players - she doesn't want to play "nice". And let's look at the SSC motto, that was perhaps for public consumption and acceptance, for outsiders - is it being used against insiders, because they play harder and more extreme? Is the new diversity and acceptance actually diverse? Whether one agrees with her or not, likes her style or not, reads it in an entirely different way - it's a compelling voice to bounce your own opinions, beliefs and assumptions off. For one, I was also appreciative that there is diversity in this community, as it makes this thread a much more interesting read!

Ona personal note, I tend to be drawn to practices that feel more extreme (extreme being a personal measure of course) physically and psychologically at times. I like the idea of exploring the depths and the heights. So some of her imagery was beautiful to me.

----------------------------------------
"I don't want to tell them about muffled yelps and screams and the moment before the tears start to flow, the terrible moment when you know that just one more sharp pain and you will not be able to hold them back. I want to tell them about watching someone's control slip away.

Touching a crotch to find that there's pussy cream mixing with drops of panic piss, and about the redness of her face when the sobbing has become deep and regular. I want to tell them about the pleas of the damned, the cries when someone doesn't know when it's going to stop or how when they want their mommy, or they want their master, or when want to surrender and fall to the ground and feel a boot at the back of their neck and grind away until they come and it's terrible."
--------------------------------------

Would I want it forced, without consent and trust, or concern for my safety - absolutely not, NO! But she had a great phrase "Romance from the gut".

 

[RisiaSkye]

Thanks for the convo, Pure et al. More thoughts...

Um, Pure, it's SSC, not SCC.

I'm not sure what you mean, Risia, but you might be saying that a) there's beyond SCC, 'in the the bedroom'; and that's fine. b) No one will get 'bent out of shape' about this.
In fact, c) SCC is more applicable to public play.

Yes, absolutely. SSC is a public slogan. Slogans have little place in the bedroom, in an intimate space. Politics, however, do reach to the bedroom, as do ideas. That's where it gets sticky, pardoning the pun.

a) is intriguing, and not often said, including in your own posted essay on SCC. It seems to say, I suppose, given your breath example, that 'safe' may be blurred just a little (while still remaining safe). Or, you're saying that you're OK with danger(properly approached), but not what the law calls "reckless endangerment." I tend to agree with this point.

I think that each of those words (safe, etc) is a self-determined thing, with individual and subjective meanings. What I consider "safe," you may not. So, you and I shouldn't play together without discussing that issue. Or, we shouldn't play together at all.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't each play our own ways.

I think it's important to consider where and for what purpose my SSC essay was posted. As a Moderator here, as an academic with a great deal to lose in the "real world," and as a self-consciously political person, I'm in a position to adopt a public persona that moves toward mainstreaming BDSM--to the extent that it makes it a little less likely we'll get harassed by that DA you mention.

That article represents my best effort to do a little outreach, for non-BDSMers. It's an intentionally 'nilla-ized essay, meant to be an overview of a set of ideas and little else. I try to walk the line between explaining to the vanilla crowd who we are and what we're about and telling people there is *A* right way to approach BDSM. Sometimes I succeed more than others. If I were speaking, as Antoniou does, to a BSDM-only group, I'd approach it differently--as I'm doing here.

I did post a thread "BDSM, the Law, and you" which goes to the issue-- your point b)--of who might be 'bent out of shape' by some s/m practices. Your local DA, for one, may not care if it's bedroom.

'Consensual' is not quite a blanket against prosecution, where significant bodily harm has occurred-- in the presence of 'stripes,' bruises, injuries requiring even minor medical attention. In short, the 'sub's' consent may be irrelevant in these situations. Prosecution may proceed in many geographical areas, as in 'domestic abuse' cases. (See the thread.) Probably you know all this.

Yes, I think we're all well aware of the risks. That is exactly why the SSC thing is important, as a political bludgeon to beat the pitchfork & lawbooks crowd with until they run away with their tails between their legs. This doesn't seem that difficult to fathom to me.

=====

In that sense Risia has a point: if you're going to do something illegal, don't do it in public and/or videotape it (as in the Spanner case I posted.) Of course 'public' is a bit tricky--another thread.

Yes, and this is where it's going to get really interesting, I think--in the definition of public. The internet is changing this question also. I'm interested to see where it all goes, but right now it's too early to call.

2) Is the opposite of SCC, 'self-destructive' (or just plain 'destructive')? Is it useful to frame the debate that way?

Only for the purposes of making a point, as I was doing. In reality, life is complicated.

Personally, I dont see why we legally infringe upon self-destruction anyway. If you don't have the freedom to destroy yourself, what freedom do you have? It's not my place to hold your hand and tell you that you must live healthily, according to my definitions.

I just want to see people have freedom--and that includes BDSMers being able to be out, people being able to leave even intense and violent relationships when they are ready and/or in need of those endings, and everyone being able to fuck whomever and however they want. Sure, it's unrealistic. But, without ideals, what is there to aim for in our goals?

RS's 'healthy relationship' label--which I don't doubt--begs the question. Or several of them. For instance--leaving aside RS-- is it healthy for one partner to 'give away' their will to another; the so-called 'power transfer.'? As Antoniou asks, is seeking danger in sport or BDSDM, wrong? Is it 'unhealthy'?

Interesting but unanswerable questions. Entirely subjective.
I don't really believe in psychiatrics.

3) Last point. Antoniou does suggest something I'm concerned with-- that bdsm becomes uniform, homogeneous. Perhaps more in the 'gentle' or 'soft' form. To some extent that shows in this thread in that there's a softening of any disagreement. Hecate is at the opposite pole from Antoniou, imho, but you'd hardly know it.

You're comparing apples to refrigerators.
How people speak and write isn't how they fuck.

This isn't a call for mayhem in debate. Bloodsport is a 'hard limit' for some! But it would be helpful to a true depth of the SM philosophy, if differences would, more often, at least be stated, as opposed to "We're all SCC, here."

They aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

The public perception is perhaps obsessively being considered, and any who, like Risia, admit to dangerous practice, are often labelled as harming the 'legal bdsm' movement.

Enough. [/B]

This is true, and it's a real problem. But, like most things BDSM, it's about finding the right balance for yourself. Don't let me, Pure, Laura Antoniou, or anybody else tell you what the "right" answer is. Read, think, fuck, explore, and figure it out for yourself.

But tell the people with the lawbooks that you're SSC.

 

[Pure]

Hi Risia Skye,

*Very* interesting thoughts; there's much to reflect on. On one small point, however, you said,

[On prosecution for inflicting bodily harm WITH consent]

Yes, I think we're all well aware of the risks. That is exactly why the SSC thing is important, as a political bludgeon to beat the pitchfork & lawbooks crowd with until they run away with their tails between their legs. This doesn't seem that difficult to fathom to me.
[...]
But tell the people with the lawbooks that you're SSC. //

If I understand your 'bludgeon' remark as indicating *general* hindrance of prosecution and conviction, I would reply and reiterate:
SSC is no barrier against prosecution, given bodily harm, esp. of the serious variety. It's no bludgeon at all in such cases, it's a wad of cotton candy!

IF you're really 'meeting' the cops or DAs, and you want general protection--i.e., most important angles--you better be

SSC and non-H (non harmful, either suffering or inflicting).

Cases making this point:

People v. Samuels, California, 1967
Commonwealth v. Appleby, Massachusetts, 1980

In Britain,
R v. Brown et al, 1993 ("Spanner") [appeal decision; later upheld in Eur. Ct.]
R v. Emmett, 1999,

The last one, you might note, is a successful prosecution for erotic asphyxiation, consented to by the 'victim', the asphyxee (is that a word?). There was harm, though not permanent injury, and based on that, a conviction for assault.

Perhaps I've mis-read you; I hope not. But, in view of how your comments may be read/mis-read, I think people should be clear on this. SSC may be a fine, pithy 'main message' for the 'vanilla' media, but it's not a protection from the law in cases of harm.

Ms Ebonyfire is one of the few posters I've ever read who's written and expressed an appreciation of this issue. (Aside from some sub females whose dom hubbies have gone to prison.)

A very informative, quite readable article is at

http://www.edmontonosociety.org/kinkysexlaw.htm

Note especially the section "How to avoid wearing handcuffs if you don't really want to."


====
The rest of your points give much food for thought, and I won't say more on all those topics, now.

'pure'