On Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

[stephb]

I've been doing a lot of reading lately and something stuck out in my mind. A transcript of a talk given by Laura Antoniou. I stumbled across this in my search for BDSM-related literature, and read it to the end. I figured we may get some good discussion out of a few parts of it.

Enough of that. I wanted to share with you some politics, and you can't leave. I couldn't wait to read this in Seattle.

It is called Unsafe At Any Speed, or Safe, Sane, and Consensual, My Fanny. No one will publish this, which is why I'm reading it out loud.

My fantasies have never been safe ones. Even back when I was a child, I remember coaching a playmate into behaving the way I imagined was proper for this little psychodrama we were about to enact. "You will be the one in charge," I said, pushing from the bottom as only a six-year old novice can, "and you're really mean. You tell me to do things that are impossible, and when I can't, you punish me and laugh."

What can I tell you? My tastes grew up with me. The amazing thing now, twenty-five years later, is how succinctly I captured the essence of S/M play. The role of the dominant as the active play-acting partner, and my role as a natural all-responsive passive partner, but only under the structure I created.

Later on, I discovered that to my mind power and sex were interlocked. There were no sexual feelings without dreams of rape, suffering, beatings, and torture. No imaginary relationships with partners of equal standing to me, only people who used me or people I used.

Dating in high school was a silly mess, a tangle of mostly forgotten fumblings in order to demonstrate my passing heterosexuality and/or my ability to feel something rather than silly and hungry when I was stoned.

The real-life power and danger that was my home and the man who married my mother, were more like what I imagined sex was. Forbidden. Secret. Painful. Confusing. Threatening. Awesome in the true sense of the word, capable of creating emotions so strange that words couldn't be put to them.

There was no sound a human being could make in order to express the terrible passion I imagined was sex. Unsafe, insane, and utterly nonconsensual.

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?
...
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.

I've been thinking a lot about this very topic lately. I've been told for years that I am not normal. That some of the things I do and say are not normal fare for someone of my age and intelligence. That being the case, this has eaten at me since I read this article.

I know, for a fact, that most of the things that I want are not sane. I know, for a fact, that most of the things that I want wouldn't be considered safe by any means by vanilla people. Consent should always play a part, of course...but to what extent? Where does the differential lie? Why HAS this become the mantra of the BDSM scene?

Am I alone in the fact that it makes me feel sick and wrong? You don't see vanilla people going around spouting a mantra for their sex lives. What they do doesn't need a slogan of 'Safe, Sane, Consensual'. It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason. It's like someone is telling me, over and over again, that I don't know how to be safe. It's almost as though we're justifying our lifestyle.

Just some ramblings to hopefully start a discussion on the matter.

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in this post are strictly my own and are not meant to offend anyone in any way. Just remember that I'm new to this. But there are some feelings that I just can't shake.

Edit: And here's the URL to the full article.
http://www.sexuality.org/latrans.html

 

[Pure]

This is a fine speech, and a famous one (referred to here, before). the issues get knocked around a number of threads, but the discussions often fail to untangle the many issues.

J.

 

[Etoile]

Yes, SSC is a slogan, but I tend to think it's a good one. Why wouldn't it be? The words themselves - sane, consensual, safe - have meaning behind them.

Yes, we should be safe. STDs, permanent damage...these are not a desirable part of kinky activity.

Yes, we should be sane. Both top and bottom need to be legally sane in order to give informed consent for anything that happens. Activities should also be sane, and that ties into safe - no doing anything that's going to cause permanent damage, that kind of thing.

Yes, we should be consensual. There are plenty of subs out there who want to be abused in a BDSM context. There's no point in doing it to somebody who genuinely doesn't want it done to them - that's rape, and it's illegal.

 

[cellis]

As someone who has sometimes walked the line with SSC, I find the idea somewhat out dated and unrealistic.

So fine shoot me.

We all know there are those who don't practise SSC. They cross the line all the time... they crave the forbidden, the costly, the dangerous. The thought of those things forbidden is extremely exciting.

What I talk about in public and where I go with Him who I trust beyond belief are two different things. I really what people to understand that it is a process, a growth and development. You don't start off with breathe play... you work up to it.

 

[FungiUg]

I always dislike the "slogan" or "assimilation" thing. So I applaud the author's sentiments. For me, safe, sane and consensual work. I get off on knowing that a woman wants to me to treat her how I do, and if it weren't consensual, I wouldn't get the same thrill out of it. Safe and sane, well... they just spell out common sense for me.

So I've never objected to what SSC means. I do struggle with the concept that I must identify with a group, and hence support a slogan (even it if it one that works for me personally.)

On the other hand, I like being able to meet people who are likeminded and who I can have interesting discussions with. And without some group identification, that would be much much harder.

So... I stand firmly on neither side with this one.

Wanders off to vacillate some more.

 

[cellis]

So... I stand firmly on neither side with this one.

Wanders off to vacillate some more.

I love that about you!

 

[Hecate]

Memories evoked of earlier discussions ....

SSC provides lazy, dull-witted, or malicious tops

Just thought I'd point to some previous discussion along the SSC line if anyone felt interested ...

Hecate

 

[FungiUg]

Interesting reading, thanks Hecate. (Sadly, the link to the original article in that thread no longer works, but the thread is still worth a read.)

Yay, now I have an excuse to be boring!

Personally, I think anything can be used as an excuse -- someone in that thread pointed out that it's still possible to be inventive and not boring, and I agree with that.

I can see it being more of an issue for those who are into more of the SM side. Because definitions of "safe" and "sane" would become somewhat more... fluid.

 

[lark sparrow]

This is a fine speech, and a famous one (referred to here, before). the issues get knocked around a number of threads, but the discussions often fail to untangle the many issues.

J.

A Previously Knocked Thread - https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124106

 

[stephb]

Consensual I agree with. But having it be a mantra is something I don't.

This brings to mind something else. I've been told countless times that I'm sick...that I need counciling...that I'm not sane. Most of the time, that comes from someone finding out some of the things that I want sexually and otherwise, being it accidental or because I out and out told them. And every single time I tried to justify it -- 'It's safe, sane, and consensual!' -- I felt fake. I just got this feeling...it sickened me. Having to justify who I am...being called insane for urges that are beyond my control. Bullshit. That may be why I hate that phrase so much.

Speaking with Sir last night has kind of opened my eyes to what I believe as far as SSC goes. Being a masochist, most of what I want does *not* fall under the 'safe' and 'sane' category. BDSM, at least in the way I want it, is as mentioned in that article -- neither safe nor sane -- and I wouldn't want it to be. I want blood, sweat and tears. I want to be completely and utterly at the mercy of a dominant partner who, though he or she knows what my limits are, strives to push those limits as far as they'll go.

This, of course, means that I have to trust the person with my being. And that is hard for me to do. I actually think that's why I want it so badly. To lose yourself that completely is freedom.

And even consensual is questionable sometimes. I sometimes crave someone who could come into my life and dominate me completely. Someone who would give me no say. But yes, fantasies are fantasies and reality is reality.

I don't know. Maybe I've spent too much time analyzing 'The Story of O' and comparing it to my own wants and needs as a submissive. Roissy sounds divine, indeed.

So really, I don't buy into the whole SSC thing. I don't think I ever will. Not for me. The meaning behind it, for me, is more negative than positive. However, these are early thoughts and it may grow on me as time goes on and I forget those 'nilla people who couldn't understand why the thought of my boyfriend piercing me in private places is exciting, or why the thought of a decent flogging gets me wetter than anything. Those people ruined the positive of 'SSC' for me.

Or maybe I don't have high enough self esteem to blow them off with an enthusiastic 'fuck you'.

 

[sigsauerprinces]

the problem with SSC is that the definitions for all three are really amiguous. its not like theres a commonly accepted definition for each of them.

safe. ha. what is safe? to some people cutting isnt safe at all. to some, light cutting with a sterilized blade is totally safe, (antibiotic ointment afterwards). to others, shoving a knife an inch into someones arm, as long as you know where major blood vessels are and take care to avoid them, and be sure to not let bleeding get out of control, is safe. in between which of those lies the real "safe"? its impossible to say.

sane. another hard one. my fantasies dont bother me. i know im sane. but were i to tell some vanillas some of my fantasies they would most definately think im crazy. even in the bdsm realm, there aer places i want to go which would probly fall outside the realm of the "sane" in ssc.

and good old consensual. i dont believe in that BS of negotiating before every scene-unless of course you're plyaing with strangers. but consent does have to be given. if i tell my partner that i have a fantasy of being raped-i tell him i want it, i consent to it happening. he says ok, thats interesting, we'll see about that. four months later when ive forgotten all about it, out of the blue he grabs me, punches me, throws me to the floor and forces himself on me, perhaps bringing a friend as well. is that still consent? in MY mind it is. i said i wanted it to happen. but i think for some of those who believe in SSC, that would be neither safe, sane, or especially not consensual. but its whats right for ME.

so yeah..id have to say im not really crazy about ssc either, just becuse each of those three words are nearly impossible to define in a way that everyone can agree with.

 

[bridgeburner]

Thanks for bringing this up --- it's been on my mind a lot lately as well, but I have a bit different perspective since my experience is almost completely vanilla.

Time and time again I've said to myself "Jeez, for all this sexual adventurousness BDsMers have a LOT more rules than the vanilla folks."

SSC is not a vanilla construction it's a BDsM construction trying to justify BDsM practices to a vanilla world.

It puts me in mind of the saying:

Never justify. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway.

I've never once in my life participated in a formal "scene", but I've had plenty of sexual encounters that went outside the bounds of strict vanilla - plenty of people have. It's just life. You can't prepare for every eventuality. You do the best you can to make decisions that won't harm you or anyone else and then you just go forward. Sometimes you have a bad experience so you learn to make better choices.

I'm not advocating recklessness, but I am saying that you cannot make everyone accept your fantasies or your sexual inclinations by dumbing it down or prettying it up. Honestly, who gives a shit if Auntie Ida thinks you're going to hell?

SSC strikes me as useful in a public/club setting where liability has to be considered, but no matter how much you talk about SSC in the end it comes down to how well you know your partner and how much you trust him/her --- just like the most vanilla of sexual encounters.

I've also noticed that SSC is often used as a flog to other BDsMers when disagreements arise. "We're okay because we're SSC but what you do doesn't fit our definition of SSC so you're a dangerous menace to yourself, your partners and the whole of the BDsM community."

Give me a fuckin' break. That kind of nannymama-ism just gives me a rash.


-B