Let's talk about SSC

[Netzach]

God I hate "computer speak"! I thought it stood for something a bit more meaningful than that. Instead it actually stands for "I either am too lazy or don't feel like typing complete words". GEEZ

Yep I agree. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to things like this. I actually feel kind of bad for having spread the stupid thing along like a virus.

 

[chris9]

Yep I agree. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to things like this. I actually feel kind of bad for having spread the stupid thing along like a virus.

Now I know my next project is to use it somewhere, so another newbie will ask me

 

[serijules]

I still don't see any difference at all between SSC and RAK. *shrugs* To me, either concept is only as safe, aware, sane, consensual, blah blah blah as the person using it. You can't judge that by an abbreviation.

SSC and RAK are not some club we belong to. Going up to someone and saying "I play SSC/RAK" is akin to walking up to someone with a bullwhip and saying "I'm really good with a whip". Ok...and how is that comment going to make me feel any better? It's just words. It's your actions I'm concerned with.

To me, SSC/RAK simply is a fancy-schmancy way of saying that you believe in communication. A hella lotta people don't believe in communication, don't practice it, and just plain don't know what the fuck it is. When you break down all that safe, sane, consensual, risk-aware stuff, it all comes back down to one thing: good old communication. Toss a little common sense in there and no matter how dangerous or crazy something may be, as long as both people involved communicate and use common sense, it could still be classified as ssc/rak.

It's like the label thing...it makes for a good discussion and a foot-in-the-door to open up a conversation, but when it comes down to it, it only matters what the person and their partners think. No one is right, and no one is wrong. SSC and RAK is ALL about opinion, each one as valid as the next to the people that have and practice them for themselves.

It stops being safe, sane, consensual and risk-aware when you start applying your own definitions and your own opinions to other people instead of communicating with the to find out their own, and making decisions on play from there on a case to case basis (aka...using common sense).

Just my opinon

By the way Marquis, I noticed that you focus mostly on physical safety, physical sanity, etc in your original post. What about emotional SSC? That quirt may leave a cut that is going to heal just fine, but emotionally, that sub may be scarred for a long time from the experience. Something to consider.

Seri

 

[Rubyb]

Thank you for the history lesson, and I think you had a lot of good things to say here. I agree that SSC works as a good PR tool, and a loose guide for what we should be doing ourselves.

A good history lesson following up a well written article by Marquis.

I believe that the PR tool has evolved into a philosophy; a system of values by which one lives.

What are SSC and RACK if not differing philosophies that define how many people play?

Both concepts have that key word consensual, which I think you did a great job of defining. That snake in a box analogy was perfect.

For others who've pointed out that once you've hit subspace, safewording and/or rational consent isn't always going to continue, thank you. I believe it's critical for the partner in the role of the top, to ensure that the sub isn't subjected to something that they'll later regret. It's better to be safe than sorry and to play with your partner another day.

 

[Rrrosyn]

I don't follow either... or maybe I follow both. It depends on how you look at it.

When j and I decide we want to do some new KINK, I research it and provide him with articles complete with pros and cons.

We decide whether it is a practice that we can do with sanity. That may sound funny to some of you, but I have blood-triggered PTSD. Blood play is not SANE nor SAFE for us. (Neither do we do breath-play.) We evaluate the RISK. We make sure we are both AWARE of the pros and cons. We set up SAFEty procedures to fall back on. Quick release clasps and ambulance scissors, etc. And then we CONSENT or we put it on a back-burner to bring up at some future date.

 

[La Kajira]

The information in this thread has been pure gold for me. I have always had a vague idea of what constitutes BDSM, some it fairly easy to categorize, some of it not so easy to fit in.

It is a real eye opener to realize that there are some things that do not count as BDSM. We all have our personal lines, things we absolutely would never do, or think we would never do.

"That isn't my BDSM" was a rather profound statement, Marquis. It made me blink, and then it made me think... and then it made me ever so slightly ashamed to realize I have been guilty of lumping all kinds of things into BDSM that might not qualify.

Thank you for that.

 

[Xelebes]

Xelebes, you are a funny motherfucker.

You want me to record this? I'll get a bunc of friends to sing this...

[/bluff]

 

[catalina_francisco]

The information in this thread has been pure gold for me. I have always had a vague idea of what constitutes BDSM, some it fairly easy to categorize, some of it not so easy to fit in.

It is a real eye opener to realize that there are some things that do not count as BDSM. We all have our personal lines, things we absolutely would never do, or think we would never do.

"That isn't my BDSM" was a rather profound statement, Marquis. It made me blink, and then it made me think... and then it made me ever so slightly ashamed to realize I have been guilty of lumping all kinds of things into BDSM that might not qualify.

Thank you for that.

Can be subjective though as in a person deciding anything they do not think of as acceptable not being part of BDSM. There has been many discussions on the forum in the past along these lines and more often than not, it is this that defines what people think of as belonging in BDSM, not the psychology or intention behind a particular act or scene. For instance, many will say scat has no place in BDSM and is not part of it whereas there are huge amounts of people who live the lifestyle who normally would not involve themselves in scat play, but in a BDSM sense will include it under humiliation play or service.....IMO it then is a legitimate part of BDSM. Similarly, though from a different angle, someone who decides to experiment and on Saturday night blindfold their partner during sex isn ot necessarily involved or doing BDSM.

If what is defined as BDSM can be based on what a person likes/dislikes, or if it is something which will not be done in any other sexual/relationship context, than there basically is nothing that can be classed as BDSM because just about everything, including sex itself, can be found to be practiced or experienced by non-BDSM folk somewhere. There also are some who have a mental list according to what has been done by BDSM folk throughout past years, and which cannot open to accept anything new as being legitimate BDSM practices.....that to me is not only limiting and conservative, but basically stifles any growth or extension within BDSM which is common in most other areas of life. I do not define what is or isn't BDSM so much on actions as the psychological and emotional context behind the act.

Catalina

 

[ZenDragoness]

edited

 

[chris9]

Thanx chris, most needed this morning and beautiful provided by you.

Ruth *still chuckling*

Glad I could make your morning better

 

[Marquis]

Can be subjective though as in a person deciding anything they do not think of as acceptable not being part of BDSM. There has been many discussions on the forum in the past along these lines and more often than not, it is this that defines what people think of as belonging in BDSM, not the psychology or intention behind a particular act or scene. For instance, many will say scat has no place in BDSM and is not part of it whereas there are huge amounts of people who live the lifestyle who normally would not involve themselves in scat play, but in a BDSM sense will include it under humiliation play or service.....IMO it then is a legitimate part of BDSM. Similarly, though from a different angle, someone who decides to experiment and on Saturday night blindfold their partner during sex isn ot necessarily involved or doing BDSM.

If what is defined as BDSM can be based on what a person likes/dislikes, or if it is something which will not be done in any other sexual/relationship context, than there basically is nothing that can be classed as BDSM because just about everything, including sex itself, can be found to be practiced or experienced by non-BDSM folk somewhere. There also are some who have a mental list according to what has been done by BDSM folk throughout past years, and which cannot open to accept anything new as being legitimate BDSM practices.....that to me is not only limiting and conservative, but basically stifles any growth or extension within BDSM which is common in most other areas of life. I do not define what is or isn't BDSM so much on actions as the psychological and emotional context behind the act.

Catalina

So you'll agree that Ted Bundy was a Dom, in the BDSM sense?

 

[catalina_francisco]

So you'll agree that Ted Bundy was a Dom, in the BDSM sense?

No, but then I guess you knew that given he was not into consent, played victim to catch many of his victims, killed his victims intentionally, and is just another one of those ridiculous ways to try and push the 'oh, so killing is OK as long as you do it with handcuffs etc. as it is then BDSM' discussions. There have been discussions here before about those who will use the guise of BDSM to get anything they want from getting laid to rape and/or murder without actually being a legitimate practitioner of our lifestyle/sexuality choice. I find they usually don't warrant discussing as they demonstrate much of what I was highlighting in that the act does not make it BDSM, the psychology and consent behind it does. Seems it will continue to be an issue people like to push despite the endless discussions about consent and the importance of it, and why, I will never understand unless it comes from people who really have an issue with the whole BDSM and D/s scene. Not your style BTW, but a popular argument from those who have issues with our choices.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

No, but then I guess you knew that given he was not into consent, played victim to catch many of his victims, killed his victims intentionally, and is just another one of those ridiculous ways to try and push the 'oh, so killing is OK as long as you do it with handcuffs etc. as it is then BDSM' discussions. There have been discussions here before about those who will use the guise of BDSM to get anything they want from getting laid to rape and/or murder without actually being a legitimate practitioner of our lifestyle/sexuality choice. I find they usually don't warrant discussing as they demonstrate much of what I was highlighting in that the act does not make it BDSM, the psychology and consent behind it does.

Actually, your original argument was:

I do not define what is or isn't BDSM so much on actions as the psychological and emotional context behind the act.

"Context" and "consent" sound and look close enough that I almost have to wonder if you were intentionally trying to pull a bait and switch on me C.

I would say that if you judge people on their pyschological and emotional context and not their actions, you swing the door wide open for all sorts of shit that is not BDSM in the way that I think we mean. Prison rape, for example, generally contains all the mental and emotional elements of BDSM. Without SSC, Big Bubba from cell block 5 is a Dom as Bundy or David Koresh.

Now I'm all about inclusivity, and I've spoken about the limiting definitions we apply to Doms, but COME ON!!! Why is it SO heinous a concept to provide ANY restrictions on a lifestyle that is so important to us? Must we be so relativist as to lose all meaning of who we are? We can't stop people from doing what they want to do anyway, but we can at least promote positive standards!

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually, your original argument was:



"Context" and "consent" sound and look close enough that I almost have to wonder if you were intentionally trying to pull a bait and switch on me C.

LOL, you wish!!?!! ..but come a little closer and we could see what could be arranged...my area of fascination at the moment is anal fisting, just got to love it when you get that extra inch and your wrist is snapped tight like a cuff being slipped on unexpectedly...and then you twist it a little and begin really having fun.

Catalina

 

[La Kajira]

.....






*goes and hides*

 

[Quint]

I would say that if you judge people on their pyschological and emotional context and not their actions, you swing the door wide open for all sorts of shit that is not BDSM in the way that I think we mean. Prison rape, for example, generally contains all the mental and emotional elements of BDSM. Without SSC, Big Bubba from cell block 5 is a Dom as Bundy or David Koresh.

Now I'm all about inclusivity, and I've spoken about the limiting definitions we apply to Doms, but COME ON!!! Why is it SO heinous a concept to provide ANY restrictions on a lifestyle that is so important to us? Must we be so relativist as to lose all meaning of who we are? We can't stop people from doing what they want to do anyway, but we can at least promote positive standards!

I'm not sure I buy it, Marquis. You yourself have proposed the argument (and please correct me if I inflect incorrectly) that a person is dominant (small d) regardless of the presence of a submissive to beat. Is a person defined by their actions or by their characteristics? We start a new thread every month or so about the traits of a "good Dominant," etc, but the truth is, without the "good" part, all you need to be dominant is dominance. There's the D/s. There is D/s that, as Netzach says, leaves the bottom better off post-scene, but that doesn't make it the only D/s per definition. One person ties up the other before sex. That's bondage. One person spanks the other. That's sadism. I'm just not feeling much kinship under the tent of BDSM-as-deeds, nor the desire to exclude any individuals based on their deeds.

I'm having so much trouble formulating my point. Grr.

Ok. I like to sing. I go to choir and meet a lot of other people who also like to sing. But these people say "If you want to sing, you shouldn't drink alcohol or eat before going to bed because you'll give yourself heartburn and it will damage your vocal folds." I'm like, fuck that, I just want to sing. If I hurt myself, that's my bad. You don't have to take responsibility for me. That doesn't make my singing any less valid, and I might still get along with everyone while I'm singing. But what I'm trying to get at is, is that my lifestyle? Not more so than being white and everything that comes with that, or being female and everything I do and don't have in common with other women, or being a manager and all my job responsibilities. That's also part of my life. Why do we feel the need to draw the line in BDSM, of all of that?

"Who we are"? Who are we? A group of individuals with different lives, interests, personalities, backgrounds, and goals--and one thing in common: we enjoy some combination of B, D, S, and/or M. And even those aren't the same. Where do we pitch this tent? How big is it? And what's holding it up?

That's my piece.

 

[FLButtSlut]

I think that so pany people within the bdsm community get so "hung up" on tolerance, being non-judgmental, "your kink isn't my kink" and such that they lose sight of the big picture.

Liberal, accepting tolerance is one thing. Marquis, I see you making one hell of an ACLU lawyer someday. The bottom line is everyone is judgmental to some extent. The problem, however, with the concept of "restriction" is who gets to be "judge and jury" to decide what would be restricted?

Not my kink, but there are those who are into blood play. Given proper safety/medical precautions, should it be a "restricted" activity? I recently saw an profile on another site where the guy stated that when he engaged in knife play, he intended to cut deep and aim for arteries. If everyone is aware of what they are doing, and his partner says "ok", should this activity be restricted?

What about children being involved? It is almost a "given" that children being involved in the lifestyle in any way is "off limits", yet, I have seen posts on another message board regarding children being brought up in the lifestyle, being trained as slaves or masters from birth. Should these activities be restricted?

Anything involving animals is restricted on this site, yet I have seen many things on it on other sites, and even have friends who engage in that type of play. Should it be restricted?

As you can see, the concept of what to restrict could become somewhat difficult. Do you make the decision based on "widely practiced" activities, just as whipping and caning? What about those whose participation in those activites go to the extreme of drawing blood? The general consensus is that if you draw blood while caning, whipping, etc. the activity should stop, but these people are seeking to achieve that result.

It would be nice to try and rely on current law to provide some restrictions, but then most of the activities in bdsm are not exactly considered legal to begin with (at least here in the US). A person can not consent to being caned according to our laws, so that isn't very helpful.

It goes on and on with there always being an alternate view. Should some things in actuality be restricted? I personally believe so. Just in the examples above, I can't see a rational person consenting to having their arteries cut, and therefore they do not have the mental capacity to understand what they would be consenting to in the entire scope of bdsm. Likewise, I can't see a rational person wanting to engage in an activity that has such a strong possibility of long term physical injury if not death, so he isn't mentally capable of consent either.

I believe that the people who think raising children with a "pre-determined" status within the bdsm community should be tortured and abused in the most heinous ways one could imagine (which within bdsm could be quite interesting in itself). While my opinion on this issue would probably be agreed to by a great majority of society as a whole, there are those who are active participants in bdsm that obviously disagree. Being who I am, I of course am certain that I am of the correct opinion on this one, but there are still those who disagree.

So...while I certainly agree with you in theory Marquis, that should be definately be some type of restriction in bdsm activities and behaviors, I don't see a practical way that it could be achieved. I am relatively sure though, that you probably have given this some thought and have some interesting ideas on how this could be achieved. Perhaps you need to start a whole new post on that subject? I know that I, for one would be quite interested in hearing what everyone had to say on the subject.

 

[Marquis]

I'm not sure I buy it, Marquis. You yourself have proposed the argument (and please correct me if I inflect incorrectly) that a person is dominant (small d) regardless of the presence of a submissive to beat. Is a person defined by their actions or by their characteristics?

Quint, I wrote you a long and elaborate post which was lost to an unexpected lockup of my computer. Now you will receive a shortened and bastardized version of this response because in less time than doctors generally allot a healthy human for daily sleep, I will be lifting large metal weights above my head in an attempt to tear the muscle fibers in my shoulders.

I think you make my point for me when you recognize the difference between a small d and big D Dominant. In the example you referred to, I was talking about a Dominant in the BDSM sense, big D. We are ALL little d's at some point in our life, just as much as we are all sadists, masochists, submissives, disciplinarians, disciplinaress (?) etc.

In fact, BDSM really covers EVERYONE if you want to draw NO lines.

I think we can all say that when we talk about BDSM, we don't mean EVERYONE. God, I had some great fucking points, but I don't have time to put them down twice. Just take my word that all of your issues were addressed thoroughly, with the usage of many humorous and thought provoking metaphors, and it all ended with a snappy punchline.

Now walk away from your computer feeling humbled and go suck your man's dick like a good girl.

 

[Quint]

Quint, I wrote you a long and elaborate post which was lost to an unexpected lockup of my computer. Now you will receive a shortened and bastardized version of this response because in less time than doctors generally allot a healthy human for daily sleep, I will be lifting large metal weights above my head in an attempt to tear the muscle fibers in my shoulders.

I think you make my point for me when you recognize the difference between a small d and big D Dominant. In the example you referred to, I was talking about a Dominant in the BDSM sense, big D. We are ALL little d's at some point in our life, just as much as we are all sadists, masochists, submissives, disciplinarians, disciplinaress (?) etc.

In fact, BDSM really covers EVERYONE if you want to draw NO lines.

I think we can all say that when we talk about BDSM, we don't mean EVERYONE. God, I had some great fucking points, but I don't have time to put them down twice. Just take my word that all of your issues were addressed thoroughly, with the usage of many humorous and thought provoking metaphors, and it all ended with a snappy punchline.

Now walk away from your computer feeling humbled and go suck your man's dick like a good girl.

Ehh, I trust you. But if you find the brainmeats to revisit the post at a later time, it'd be appreciated.

Operation: Morning Blowjob shall commence shortly.

 

[Shadowedge]

I really found this thread thought provoking. SSC in my personal book has always been a sounding board over which I slide any activity that I consider doing. It is very personal standard. I don't think one can make these sort of guide lines for anyone else, although if one is doing scene with a person, BOTH sets of Guidelines should be respected.

The Sub space issue was a valid and good one to bring up. I am often not in my right mind when I am deep under, and my Dom knows this. But in the past I have pulled myself out of sub space to safe word out of a scene, because dispite the fact that I was way under, I hadn't consented to what was happening before hand, and was aware that it was not something I would normally EVER consent to. For that matter I hadn't consented in the context of the scene, but that may or may not be beside the point.

the concept of : "That's not my BDSM." is also one I am still working on. I can see saying, " no, that is not in my limits," or "not my cup of tea," but not BDSM is a tough one. I heard a definition once that goes something like, "if both people think it's BDSM, than it is." This has tended to be my defintion. On the other hand, if a serial killer claims to have gotten conset from the victems before hand I'm fairly sure THAT's not BDSM.

Sigh. I though I had something to say, but mostly I still have questions.

 

[Marquis]

Ehh, I trust you. But if you find the brainmeats to revisit the post at a later time, it'd be appreciated.

Operation: Morning Blowjob shall commence shortly.

I think I've told this story before, but I'm reminded of an incident where the governing body of an all inclusive gay pride parade wouldn't allow the North American Man/Boy Love Association to march with the other groups.

Same gender love is what the parade was all about right?

Obviously the decision makers of the event felt that allowing absolutely ANYONE who might be somehow correlated with their movement was not in the best interest of forwarding their progress. I happen to agree.

Moreover, is every girl who kisses another girl part of the gay movement?

What about all the downlow brothers that fuck boys on Saturday, then damn homos to hell in church on Sunday?


A movement is built up of much more than those that exhibit qualifying characteristics. I consider myself part of the BDSM culture, movement, society, whatever you want to call it. You may not. I have an interest in seeing BDSM move in a positive direction from both a PR perspective and from the ontologically positive perspective that is at the heart of any sustainable PR campaign.

 

[Marquis]

the concept of : "That's not my BDSM." is also one I am still working on. I can see saying, " no, that is not in my limits," or "not my cup of tea," but not BDSM is a tough one. I heard a definition once that goes something like, "if both people think it's BDSM, than it is." This has tended to be my defintion. On the other hand, if a serial killer claims to have gotten conset from the victems before hand I'm fairly sure THAT's not BDSM.

I'm reminded of the German case where a cannibalism fetishist places an ad for a volunteer for "slaughter and consumption." He finds a volunteer and goes through with the act. I believe he is serving life and jail.

Safe? Certainly. The intended result was achieved, I believe without any unintended results some antacid couldn't take care of.

Sane? I don't think so. Legal issues aside, I don't think the desire to kill and eat another human, or the desire to be killed and eaten by one, acted upon, could be considered sane. Maybe in unavoidable circumstances, but not as a fetish.

Consensual? Without a doubt.


Fisting:

Not my cup of tea.

Cannibalism:

Not my BDSM.

 

[Shadowedge]

Wow. I must be niave, but I had never though of cannablism as a fetish...

What I intended to preclude in my post was the that's not REALLY BDSM stance I have run into on occasion. "If it's not a 24/7 it's not really BDSM" is in fact something that was thrown at me once, and something I find very offensive.

Part of the problem may be that it is very diffcult/complicated to reconcile the "try not to hurt people" idea that I attempt to live by with BDSM. Consent is the only way i have found to do this. How, after all, do you define sane? I can tell you what I consider sane, but according to whom should we set the bar?

Not the Law, not our parents, not organized religion, or popular opinion, since all of these, (usually) would preclude BDSM at all.

I think it is wrong to have sex with children, (who can't give consent,) or animals, (who can't give consent, (but what if the animal trys to have sex with you?)) or to kill people, (but what about Doctor assisted suicide? Is it someone's right to die if they want to?)

This is what I mean by it being diffcult to draw the line. Do we resign ourselves to personal moral codes, and hope that that is enough? Do we make some laws to protect those who can not protect themselves and resign ourselves to individuals of dubious intent preying on those who give consent to them? I just don't know.

But in the end, canniblism is not my BDSM either.

 

[chris9]

I'm reminded of the German case where a cannibalism fetishist places an ad for a volunteer for "slaughter and consumption." He finds a volunteer and goes through with the act. I believe he is serving life and jail.

Safe? Certainly. The intended result was achieved, I believe without any unintended results some antacid couldn't take care of.

Sane? I don't think so. Legal issues aside, I don't think the desire to kill and eat another human, or the desire to be killed and eaten by one, acted upon, could be considered sane. Maybe in unavoidable circumstances, but not as a fetish.

Consensual? Without a doubt.


Fisting:

Not my cup of tea.

Cannibalism:

Not my BDSM.

Actually in the Rothenburg cannibal case (I assume that you were thinking about that one because we don't have THAT many cannibals around here ) consent WAS in question. If you kill someone with their consent you won't be convicted murderer. That's only for some very specific intentions/purposes. And even if one of those is fulfilled, the consent will break it to being only manslaughter in a minor case (freely translated). BUT the victim of the cannibal wanted to leave during the evening, wanted to stop the whole thing. He was persuaded (or forced or drugged -I'm not sure on this anymore) to stay and be killed.

 

[Marquis]

Actually in the Rothenburg cannibal case (I assume that you were thinking about that one because we don't have THAT many cannibals around here ) consent WAS in question. If you kill someone with their consent you won't be convicted murderer. That's only for some very specific intentions/purposes. And even if one of those is fulfilled, the consent will break it to being only manslaughter in a minor case (freely translated). BUT the victim of the cannibal wanted to leave during the evening, wanted to stop the whole thing. He was persuaded (or forced or drugged -I'm not sure on this anymore) to stay and be killed.

Well what was he doing over there in the first place?

And dressed so provocatively I might add! He probably made himself look as delicious as possible and expected to just have this guy salivate all night and do nothing!